On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Maxwell
Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote:
I've suggested something similar in the
past:
For their initial confirmation, administrators are required to reach a
certain, objectively-defined and absolute threshold of votes (not
a "discussion", not "consensus", but an outright vote), discounting
SPAs, socks, and maybe a few others. A week after their confirmation
process begins, if they meet that criteria they are admins.
From then on out, they must maintain that support. A page is maintained
for each administrator. It begins with the original confirmation
request, and from that individual users may add or withdraw their support
for that administrator as they see fit. Once a week, on the same day as
the admin was initially confirmed, someone checks to see if they still
meet that threshold. If they fall below the threshold for two consecutive
weeks, they are de-adminned (requiring two consecutive weeks rather than
just a single week helps give admins a chance to explain why they did
what they did, in the event of a particularly controversial action that
may nonetheless have been the best thing to do in a particular
situation).
Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be
subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
An RfA is only a big deal if you find yourself compelled to respond to every
point made against you...in other words, it's only a big deal if being an
administrator is an actual goal of yours--it's only a big deal if you *want*
to be an administrator.
Frankly, those are the people I don't think should be administrators.
If you don't really care much if you're turned down, all you have to do is
fill out your nomination statement and leave it alone. These are the people
we need: people who don't necessarily *want* the job, but are willing to do
it at the request of the community.
Are you familiar with Cincinnatus? Or George Washington, for that matter?