UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Reevaluations
Open for discussion. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:29, 22 July 2009 (BST)
So basically
A kind of re-tooling of the promotions system? I think that's a great way to go about it - bureaucrats are supposedly trusted even more than sysops and it eliminates almost all of the concerns people were raising over the other one. --Cyberbob 01:32, 22 July 2009 (BST)
- Yup. You still have the guidelines for the regular users, and I just applied that system to the sysops. That gets your regular evaluations and should stem any trust arguments. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:42, 22 July 2009 (BST)
Timing
I think 6 months is too often. We'll be having constant reevaluations, often multiple ones going at the same time. I'd prefer at least every 12 month, with the sysop having the option to go early at any time before that if they wish -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:13 22 July 2009 (BST)
- I think 6 months is okay, but we do need to spread them out. Each period is six months. The initial round of reviews starts with the oldest 'op, then a one month period until the next 'op goes? That way everyone gets a review in due time, but it's not all clustered together.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:16, 22 July 2009 (BST)
- You have ten at the moment who would be reviewable. You could separate them out to do one a month until each sysop has their review. The thing would be that you'd have some overlap with it. We'll have to put something i about a crat who is just coming out of being a crat (which I would assume they would be re-evaluated at six months from losing the crat position). --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)
- One a year could be workable. You have 10 up for review, and you could effectively assign people months. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)
- The thing I like about allowing a sysop some latitude to choose their own timing (by going early) though, is that they can choose a time when they haven't been involved in a drama session, so that their review will be based on their long term performance, rather than the mood at the time. The wiki goes through periods where the admins as a whole get glowing recommendations, and others where they're seen as failing as a group, to say nothing of the occasional stuff up, or piece of stupidity by individuals, even if they are, on the whole, good sysops. Reviews should be held in calm circumstances, if possible, so the evaluation isn't based on the emotion of the time -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:38 22 July 2009 (BST)
- Unnecessary. The decision is not a vote.... 'Crats are elected because, supposedly, they can address the merits of promotions/demotion objectively. So everyone tells me....
- And as per my suggestion earlier... I support 6 months, a year is an eternity on this wiki, 6 months is appropriate. However, I also say the commenting period should only be 1 week b/c the sysop has already been approved, this is a review not a new nomination. --WanYao 03:25, 22 July 2009 (BST)
- Perhaps an initial 6 months evaluation, then yearly? Because users can change after being promoted, but they don't often change their style much after they have settled in. I just don't want to see the wiki flooded with even more admin drama by having continuous promotion/reevaluation drama -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:54 22 July 2009 (BST)
- The thing I like about allowing a sysop some latitude to choose their own timing (by going early) though, is that they can choose a time when they haven't been involved in a drama session, so that their review will be based on their long term performance, rather than the mood at the time. The wiki goes through periods where the admins as a whole get glowing recommendations, and others where they're seen as failing as a group, to say nothing of the occasional stuff up, or piece of stupidity by individuals, even if they are, on the whole, good sysops. Reviews should be held in calm circumstances, if possible, so the evaluation isn't based on the emotion of the time -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:38 22 July 2009 (BST)
- I think 6 months is a bit too long.... maybe 4 months... or we could have an election every 6 months an a renewal every 3 months --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 03:34, 22 July 2009 (BST)
Wording
Point one looks screwy. "Significant time within the community. - We define this as at least 3 months since the candidate's last edit." What are you trying to say? Right now it seems to imply that you have to be inactive for three months.--Darth Sensitive 
W! 02:46, 22 July 2009 (BST)
- I'll admit I'm a little confused about this point in the context of re-evaluation aswell... --ϑϑℜ 04:05, 22 July 2009 (BST)
