On 07/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@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.