On 15/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2)Results in a large group of admins who don't really know their way around policy/process.
{{fact}}
I've seen a lot of this project's policy and process. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd get involved with all of it should I become an admin.
the effect of this is that when they do get involved they tend to cause trouble with the hyper-actives and thus reduce their work rate.
{{fact}} again.
Everyone has to learn the ropes. That's not a disruptive process; it's a natural part of a growing community. If the system as it exists can't cope with a higher influx of administrators, then new procedures for training need to be implemented. Anyway, the more users that become admins, the greater the chance that you will find more "hyper-actives" who will offset this dubious effect of new admins.
3)there is no benefit in designing processes to be comprehensible to those who don't use them regularly. If you have 20 people doing 90% of the work in one area (say a sub aspect of deletion) there is little point in worrying about the needs of that 10% when setting up the process. This is why process may appear incomprehensible to outsiders. No benefit in doing otherwise.
What has this to do with quiet admins being harmful to the project?
4)splits in the admin community between those who do large amounts of work and those who don't. Split would be lessened if the majority of admins were fairly active (~>100 admin actions a month) obviously there is always going to be something of a split between the hyper actives and other admins but that split would be smaller if most admins were fairly active
Are you trying to imply that factions would develop in the admin community based on how much work people do? Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous.
5)security risk (admin accounts getting hacked) without the gain.
This is conjecture and scaremongering.
6)reduces the practical size of our reserves. Fairly active admins have less problem stepping up their admin action rate than the in actives. They already know the ropes so it is simply a matter of doing more stuff.
What is this need to "step up [one's] admin action rate"? Why can't our admins continue what they're doing? If we end up with some admins who are all-out gung-ho types and a bunch of slow admins... we still end up with more admins. All of whom are doing /something/. This is not a problem.
7)gives a misleading picture of our admin resources. In theory we had 849 active admins as of March 3, 2007. The real figure is closer to 400.
This is a non-issue. Nobody's forced to use the total number of admins to refer to anything. Stats on activity exist, and can be quoted, as you yourself have done here.