----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Pellegrini" mapellegrini@comcast.net Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:08:41 -0400 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fixed term sysops.
Having fixed terms is an excellent idea. One or two year appointments would be ample, and would not be overly burdensom. A sysop whose term had expired could stand for re-election after (say) 6 months. Mark
No offense, but I think this is an extremely bad idea. With maybe one or two exceptions, our sysops are trustworthy, reliable, and obedient to the rules. Having elections, on the other hand, would be like ringing the dinner bell for everyone troll or vandal with an axe to grind against a particular sysop (or sysops). In addition, the administrative overhead would be fearsome. I'd also like to point out that by your 1 sysop/1000 article standard, we're about 40 sysops below strength.
Now, in the past, I have complained that a lot of people are getting nominated for adminship without being here long enough. I think this criticism is valid. I don't recognize most of the names coming up on the RFA these days, and that worries me. I think people need to be a bit more critical of new requests, but I don't think that means that we should be trying to cull down the number of sysops - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I happen to agree with the fixed terms. Pellegrini had some good reasons, and mine is: why now? If this is a good idea, why wait until there are well over 200 sysops? Constant elections = hectic + voter fatigue.
Ryan