QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 14th July 2008, 12:37pm)
Actual suggested policy:
QUOTE
1) Candidates with their first successful requests for adminship will get a 1-year term as admin;
2) At the end of their first term, adminship will, in all cases, be revoked;
3) After 1 month, the candidate may re-apply for adminship;
4) Second and subsequent RFAs generate two-year terms, with a minimum 2-month gap between successive terms. There is no limit on the number of admin terms that may be served.
5) All admins at the time this policy is enacted may serve at least one additional year, with their term ending on the anniversary of their first successful RFA after that year has passed.
6) Checkusers shall be, at a minimum, admins who have been elected to a third term. Checkusers shall serve a maximum of two two-year terms. If a checkuser's admin status expires during his or her term, that admin status will be extended until the end of the checkuser term.
I dare someone to post an RFC on this and try to get it passed.
It's about what I was thinking, except for the required gap between terms. I see no tangible benefit to forcing a loss of privileges, so it's just over-regulating things. If an admin wants to submit their next RfA two or three weeks before their term is up in order to avoid an interruption to their privileges, it wouldn't make any difference, IMO (I think it would be a good sign that they plan ahead, rather than react after-the-fact). On the other hand, if an admin wants to take a break from the responsibility for any length of time between terms, that should be fine, too.
For that matter, it would be interesting if the RfA candidate can request admin privileges for whatever length of time they want (as long as they specify it). After all, term lengths are pretty arbitrary anyway. In reality, that system would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but it could possibly work.
I like to mull things over for a while, but I might consider submitting a proposal if no-one beats me to it.