User talk:Pestolence/001

Just some thoughts:

• A problem with a "review" policy is that it disadvantages the more "janitorial" sysops that aren't active around A/VB, or A/M (where they get "noticed,") but still empty out the request list at A/MR, A/SD, etc. To be honest, it won't disadvantage them that much, but users might vote "never see 'em" when they are still doing important tasks.
• Likewise, "controversial" sysops could find it hard to get a fair review, especially if there was a bout of drama that involved them days before. People having that fresh in their mind could make an honest review impossible.
• The "will of the community" is a hard thing to define, best shown by J3D's bid. What about where we have a situation were a lot of lurking/semi active users vote "no" and a lot of active users vote "yes." The final decision resting with the 'crats fixes this to an extent.

At the end of the day though, I personally think that having irrelevant/excess sysops isn't really a bad thing. It helps to get rid of the "sysop elitism" stigma, and having a backlog is useful for when sysops go inactive. Most sysops do their job, and putting this up (as Karek said,) leads to factionalism, and politicization of sysops. Sadly, we have taken steps in that direction already, but sysops shouldn't have to appeal to the masses to get there job done, and this could even just cause sysops to appeal to the masses-not a good thing. Anyway, sorry if this is rambling a bit. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)