Thread:Drew1200/@comment-5052737-20130821185252/@comment-4845243-20130824001733

RePeat wrote: I'm not saying they can't have a life in the least bit. What I'm trying to say is that they've made a commitment to be active users of the community, and some just don't honor that commitment. Ergo, not being as responsible as is owed.

I get that people are busy. They have a real life, and that's good. But if you can't honor your commitment, you have to be responsible enough to let go, like Seaside.

And you accuse me of being unclear...?

When did administrators make such a commitment, btw? The only commitment I have made is to use the time I spend on this wiki first for my administrative tasks and then for other things. I have not made any commitment to prioritize LMBW over other things in my life. The is absolutely no reason why admins can't be only semi-active (although we will not promote them unless they are active). We are not being irresponsible by being inactive.

What I would say, is that if you are not active enough to keep up with things, decisions should be made without you. But that is quite different than Alemas's drastic plan, that you agreed with.

There is also not a single reason to demote admins, as Alemas suggested, even if they go inactive. Seaside was never demoted. That is the plan you are supporting: to demote any admins who go inactive. But an admin who makes a few contributions is still more valuable than one who makes zero. Demoting them, thus, destroys assets.

Btw, your sig seriously messes up the quoting thing. There's no reason to use sigs on message walls, we can just click on your name.