UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Update Reevaluation Procedure

For it

I see no need for complicating matters when can just keep the same discussion duration for both A/PM and A/RE. Besides, the one week more sys-ops would have by that policy would be meaningless compared to the 8 months of their usual term. Keep it simple, stupid. -- Spiderzed█ 14:40, 26 June 2011 (BST)

Meh.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 14:42, 26 June 2011 (BST)

Whaterver --hagnat 20:32, 26 June 2011 (BST)

Unnecessary

Reviewing all re-evaluation requests it seems the silver bullet for denying re-evaluations is a lack of activity. In such circumstances the shorter time is beneficial as it is a good acid test of whether the sop is editing or even aware of the process, and sometimes promotes a surge in activity. (The kick up the back side approach). --Rosslessness 22:57, 26 June 2011 (BST)

I tend to think it's unnecessary as well. There's not really much need for discussion, since either a sysop will be re-approved, which usually happens in short order, or else they'll have a groundswell of opposition, which is almost always backed by ample evidence due to the high profile nature of their job. Promotions need longer, since vetting non-sysops is a more labor-intensive procedure. The users are rarely as high profile as the current sysops, which means that we can't vouch/dissuade in an informed manner without first going through their contributions. And, whereas the administration pages act as a repository of meaningful contributions for sysops which can be easily scanned when it comes time to judge them at A/RE, non-sysops have no such group of pages, meaning that we have to look around quite a bit more to get a feel for what type of person they are. —Aichon— 03:41, 27 June 2011 (BST)

I'm pretty much indifferent, the process will have little difference if changed. It's worth noting that I'm pretty sure a large part of the 1 week idea was that a) it was more of a simple re-evaluation rather than a "big deal" user promotion, and b) was that we had a shitload of evaluations to get through and we didn't want it to take us 3 months of straight bids. Since the second one was a pretty influential reason in the decision it would probably be more fitting to change it now, though I don't think it'll change all that much. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:18, 27 June 2011 (BST)

1. I also think it's unnecessary. They're scheduled for fucking ages in advance, and are always either pretty sedate affairs that don't need to be extended, or heated ones that are settled quickly due to strong opinions not waiting to be made. Either way, a week is fine. 11:39, 1 July 2011 (BST)
2. Mostly because we don't really give users the time to add input. Two weeks(fortnight) is the wiki standard for that type of thing and it was broken with here to try and get the policy passed. There is no actual benefit from the shorter time frame. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:32, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Conditional support

I don't like “2 weeks”. Make it an even fortnight instead. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:45, 27 June 2011 (BST)

Voting

I'll put this up for voting soon. It's a very minor adjustment, with no further debate needed. We'll see what people prefer. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:16, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I'm fine with it. -- Spiderzed█ 22:18, 2 July 2011 (BST)