Simple
Does anything really need to be said about this? Simple change to fix something overlooked when sysop evaluations were implemented. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:37, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- I don't think it was overlooked (I think more trust was placed in them, hence why it was that way), but I do agree that 8 months makes more sense. —Aichon— 06:54, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- +1 --Rosslessness 10:43, 5 May 2011 (BST)
- It wasn't overlooked, as:
| said:
|
| After 3 months with no elections on a bureaucrat position, an election is called for the bureaucrat position longest without an election.
|
- Since there are only two bureaucrats, each position will have an election every six/seven months (seven includes the two weeks of voting per election). The 12 months bit was a failsafe, in the event that something occurred that caused havok with the bureaucrat elections (say the addition of a third crat). In the event of a third bureaucrat position, then you are talking about 10 months cycle, which still fits in under the 12 month range. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:11, 5 May 2011 (BST)
- It was overlooked in the Sysop Re-evaluation cycle change not the 'crat voting policy.The issue is 'crats going through standard re-evaluation while still 'crats.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:45, 5 May 2011 (BST)
- Bureaucrats shouldn't be going through Re-valuation due to the following:
| said:
|
| The bureaucrat's promotions process is in essence a re-evaluation of a sysop by the community. Bureaucrats go through regular process of re-elections, so each time they are elected, the community is renewing their faith in the sysop, and is not subject to re-evaluation through this policy. When a bureaucrat is not re-elected and becomes a sysop again, then the sysop is again available for re-evaluation through this policy. When this happens, the bureaucrat's eight months start from when they were promoted to bureaucrat.
|
- and
- Or is there another policy which modified the Sysop Re-evaluations policy? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:06, 5 May 2011 (BST)
- No, there is not. The way that's being interpreted currently is that so long as their last re-eval is current(crat vote in 8 months) they are not subject to the policy. This change is simpler than needless drama over the other and keeps the spirit and purpose of that policy more current. We actually discussed the problems that could come up with the way the policy was worded, and in specific this, when it was voted on. This is the kinda thing that should never have happened. Changing the policy this way clears up any confusion by, if my maths are correct, making it technically impossible. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 01:50, 6 May 2011 (BST)
- I see what happened. Since boxy stepped down in October, it ended up pushing Ross's required bureaucrat run to January. He should not have put himself up for Re-Evaluation, as Sysop Reevaluations states that winning the normal bureaucrat cycle is the symbol of faith from the community, and his bureaucrat seat was supposed to be up nine days later on January 18th, 2011 (I have no idea why he didn't wait). Fortunately, that is covered under the voluntary re-evaluation rules. As for this policy amendment, I suppose this is is changing the Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling policy and not Sysop Reevaluations, as Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling focuses on bureaucrats? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:22, 6 May 2011 (BST)
- Yes, it's basically to make the two time frames sync better. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 02:33, 6 May 2011 (BST)
- Works for me. I was just wondering what caused it. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:37, 6 May 2011 (BST)
