April Arcus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Admin input: +agree |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
#I believe that it is dangerous to privilege admin opinions over non-admin users. In particular, I do not believe that my opinion should outweigh a dedicated long-time contributor such as The Merovingian, whose failure to achieve admin status to date is entirely apart from his competency as a contributor and the validity of his point of view. | #I believe that it is dangerous to privilege admin opinions over non-admin users. In particular, I do not believe that my opinion should outweigh a dedicated long-time contributor such as The Merovingian, whose failure to achieve admin status to date is entirely apart from his competency as a contributor and the validity of his point of view. | ||
#It may be unrealistic to await a response from ''all'' administrators - of the seven current admins, several have fairly sporadic availability. As an alternative, I might propose that we require a quorum (50% + 1) of administrators to weigh in. (On the other hand, major proposals can wait the week or so it would take to round up all admins, but this will become more of a problem as the admin staff grows). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:43, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | #It may be unrealistic to await a response from ''all'' administrators - of the seven current admins, several have fairly sporadic availability. As an alternative, I might propose that we require a quorum (50% + 1) of administrators to weigh in. (On the other hand, major proposals can wait the week or so it would take to round up all admins, but this will become more of a problem as the admin staff grows). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:43, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::I agree with both points. As a nitpick, "more than half" is probably a better way of defining quorum. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 01:14, 30 June 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 06:14, 30 June 2006
Please note that I haven't begun work on the Think Tank proposal page template. I am now going to bed. Good night. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 22:50, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Admin input
I understand why Joe feels that admin input should be privileged and that all admins should be required to weigh in before enacting a change, and I don't fully disagree with him, but I must raise two concerns:
- I believe that it is dangerous to privilege admin opinions over non-admin users. In particular, I do not believe that my opinion should outweigh a dedicated long-time contributor such as The Merovingian, whose failure to achieve admin status to date is entirely apart from his competency as a contributor and the validity of his point of view.
- It may be unrealistic to await a response from all administrators - of the seven current admins, several have fairly sporadic availability. As an alternative, I might propose that we require a quorum (50% + 1) of administrators to weigh in. (On the other hand, major proposals can wait the week or so it would take to round up all admins, but this will become more of a problem as the admin staff grows). --Peter Farago 00:43, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
- I agree with both points. As a nitpick, "more than half" is probably a better way of defining quorum. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 01:14, 30 June 2006 (CDT)