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)

Sooooo...we pretty much just sit and wait three days.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:21, 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)

BLAARGH! Didn't we just change this stuff or just set it up? Geez let's give it a chance to ride for a while.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Except the fact that 8 was too long from the start.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

6, if not 4.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

4 is just too short, 6 is about right.-- Adward  23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a supporter of 8 first time round, 6 sounds good now.-- Adward  13:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Don't really feel the need to say much more. --Honestmistake 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that 6 months is fine. --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see two months making much of a difference, but whatever. --ZsL 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Not that I really care. Cookies and Cream 02:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also am rather "meh" on the whole issue. I haven't been around long enough to see things get bogged down with A/RE, and I don't see much difference coming from 6 months versus 8. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Put this up for voting

Either people agree with it or they don't. This needs no moar discussion!!! --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Policies have a mandatory three-day discussion period before they can be put up for vote. —Aichon— 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't care!!! ANGER >:( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

YONNUA SMASH!-- Adward  18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This

Can, and should be put up now, I'll poke SA on IRC. (when he's on)-- Adward  18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is truth. I was just busy.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)