UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/ARE
Discussion
DISCUSS-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was up for 6 the first time around. --RosslessnessWant 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)
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)