[Foundation-l] Term of service?

Mon May 22 19:28:46 UTC 2006

On 5/22/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with it. For one thing, inactive administrators would
> be purged

I never understood the need for that. It should be sufficient to flag
them as inactive. It's true that the irreversibility of image
deletions does represent a bit of a security hole, of course, but that
applies to active admins as well.

> as well as those who simply don't work out. On English,
> they can only be removed if they are nasty enough that they end up in
> arbitration, and that is very nasty indeed.

As long as adminship only represents a certain level of trust and is
primarily used to push buttons for those who can't, that shouldn't be
a problem. I've long felt that admins should be called "trusted
users". To de-admin someone is then to explicitly label them as
untrusted, and that should only be done in nasty cases. It would also
mean that everyone who contributes and understands the policies should
eventually become trusted, without a need to sum up percentages for
namespace contributions or edit summaries.

Erik