WiKirby talk:Editor-in-Chief/draft

Length of Term

Should the position be annually elected or only done "as needed"? Tacopill (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say as needed. ---Pink Yoshi Fan 23:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As needed. Having yearly elections would invite campaigning, which I find distasteful for a wiki. --Samwell (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I would say either way works, but I have a small lean towards it being as needed. - Gigi (talk • edits) 23:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably as needed. I don't mind yearly election, but it creates an odd situation where the EiC would only have the option to quit every year, which undermines the principle of volunteer work. I'm in no rush to retire from the position, of course, but we probably don't need yearly election here at least as of now. --YFJ (talk · edits) 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As needed. I see no reason to reconfirm an EiC when there's no good reason to (like a controversy). If the EiC is no longer trusted from their position, the community will always say so. We are also a small wiki, and we probably all know each other well. pandakekok9 (poyo) 03:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
As needed per arguments above. Superbound (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
As needed. There is no need for replacement when/if the current team already does a good job. Trig - 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I say as needed per the reasons above. -- Jellytost ♡ (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be to make it "as needed". Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Position Requirements

Should being nominated be restricted to admins and above, patroller and above, open to all? Tacopill (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Admins+ only. They are the ones with the most experience with the wiki. --Samwell (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Admins+ only is also my preferred option, for the same reason as Samwell. - Gigi (talk • edits) 23:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Admins+ definitely seems like the best option, for reasons that Samwell expressed quite clearly. Admins have the most experience with wiki work, and considering that the EiC position includes a promotion to bureaucrat, already have experience with many of the tools that the EiC has access to. --YFJ (talk · edits) 23:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm neutral to this. Obviously if someone is clearly edible to be a 'crat, then there's a bug chance that they already are, and inexperienced users who try to self-nominate will probably fail imminently. Probably. That's my reasoning for my doubt, since there users on this wiki whose age isn't in the double digits yet, who knows what might happen. It might be good to create idiot-proof system. Superbound (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I say patrollers+ only if self- nomination is banned. Otherwise, admins+ per above reasoning. ---Pink Yoshi Fan 12:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest having Moderator+ instead of Admin+ as the specific powers of moderator are for preventing any harm from the wiki almost exclusively, and as so, would insinuate that being the second rank garners at least some general experience. Perhaps what could be suggested is that people below admin can only nominate in the ranks higher than their own (for example, at this time, patroller Scrooge200 could only nominate a Moderator, Admin, or Crat, while Moderators such as Superbound could only vote for Admins or Crats. Admins and Crats can naturally vote for anyone. Just an idea. Trig - 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Admins+ have the most experience since they have been around the wiki for the longest, so I say Admins+. -- Jellytost ♡ (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Moderator+ but without extra rules suggested by Trig. They have experience and trust, so if the community prefers one of them they could go for one too. —Viperision (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be to make it "Admin+". Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Review

Alright I have few questions to ask.

I think 1 week voting period and 3 day nomination period are waaaaaaaay to short, considering our Referendums last two weeks. I think that time will do enough for voting and 1 week for nomination.

I'm unsure if we really should skip over the process of election and just appoint AEiC automatically. I suggest having AEiC (assuming they weren't removed as well) to run the election.

Does AEiC needs to be a 'crat? Since if they are taking over their responsibilities they probably should have 'crat tools. If EiC appoints someone who isn't a 'crat, are they going to be promoted (even if just temporarily for that period of time)?

Overall I'm mostly fine with everything else (sans annual elections but they are already discussed above). Superbound (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to leave "does the AEiC become bureaucrat", "does the AEiC need to be a bureaucrat to be chosen", etc., up to an EiC; but if we want formalize it, we can.

Similarly, we can make it an electable position, rather than appointed.

Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer not having the position at all (see below), but if we do end up having it I think it should be an elected position. ---Pink Yoshi Fan 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

AEIC

I think AEiC would create even more Rank separation, and we should simplify it down. Being the only other active bureaucrat, Samwell is basically already that. In case of extended (complete) inactivity without a notice or a clear declaration of stepping down, the wiki owner should hold a new EiC election. No AEiC needed - it's basically EiC deciding who should automatically become one without new elections. WiKirby won't go on fire in these short infrequent EiC-less time frames. —Viperision (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Viper. Having an AEiC would create unneeded rank complexity since Samwell - and possibly other active Bureaucrats in the future - already serves as a sort of AEiC. -- Jellytost ♡ (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Per Viperision, the AEiC position seems a bit unneeded. ---Pink Yoshi Fan 12:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The point of the position is to prevent the situation that happened in FEW, where they disappeared and the rest of the wiki went without any burecreates, which meant no new admins or patrollers could be appointed, etc. Had they have a second-in-command to fill in the gap, they could have stepped in and do the promotions as needed. True, the current EiC is good at the moment. I' m just proposing this position as a worst-case-scenario plan. (Same with the idea that the staff can vote to remove an EiC, if they ever disappear.) Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that being an issue here since we have 2 or 3 (depending on if you only count wiki activity or not) active crats. ---Pink Yoshi Fan 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't honestly understand the strong opposition to the AEiC role; as Tacopill said, it's basically in case the current EiC disappears or just cannot continue with the position. If you see it like a vice-president, I think the role's purpose become clearer. In that case, both could be elected together, and perhaps the AEiC doesn't need to be promoted to bureaucrat unless they need to step up to then become the EiC in case the current one steps down. While you could argue the wiki's bureaucrat are already the "leads" of the wiki, and if the EiC isn't around they fulfill that role, I think the job of an EiC is different than of a bureaucrat, which is why I think it's must better to have us also elect a AEiC in case they are ever needed. Plus, we never know what may happen in the future: right now we only have a small number of bureaucrats, it's not impossible to have most or all become inactive or step down at some point. Hard to predict, and honestly I would rather be safe than sorry, even if the possibility is probably low. - Gigi (talk • edits) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)