On 07/10/2007, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/07, Adrian <aldebaer(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process
where the community
expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in
cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So
you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon
to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of
heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
That presents an interesting and probably unintentional idea. What if
we were to re-poll all of the same "voters" that helped "elect" a
particular admin, just to see how much *their* trust has dwindled?
That could produce some interesting results. I'm not going to mention
any names but I can think of at least a couple of my own "support
votes" which I'd very much like to withdraw.
Interesting model, that. Vote for them, probationary period, repoll
everyone who voted positively the first time - but no-one else - and
see if anything changes.
Not something we could reasonably implement, but perhaps worth working
out on paper as a theoretical exercise for someone else to pick up.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk