UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/ARE

Discussion

DISCUSS-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was up for 6 the first time around. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I was for twelve, but I can't say I really care. I still think six is a bit short, but I'm too lazy to back it up with evidence and opinions >.>. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I've always felt that eight months was far too long in terms of the wiki. Six is more reasonable. —Aichon— 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't really care either which way. Cyberbob  Talk  01:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I support 6. --Haliman - Talk 01:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I say six is perfectly fine. 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good to have them too often. We don't want a constant round of promotions/reevaluations with little break in between. the reason we haven't had one in a while is only because we are still on the first round of reevaluations, and everyone was done within a short space of time. Once they start spreading out (as they will in time), I think that 8 months will be fine -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:47 3 January 2010 (BST)

I've been wanting this for a while as well, but I think only because it gives one cycle of bureaucrat the chance to evaluate the whole sysop team whilst he has the position. --

 

 

 

 

03:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, this wouldn't go into effect until after an 'ops 8 month a/re has passed. So everyone wouldn't be brought back up two months early, they'd just have it rescheduled after this round for 6 months.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind taking my first at six months if it smooths the transition. 04:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)