Sun 20th December 2009, 3:00am
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 20th December 2009, 12:13am)
Well, actually that's been discussed many times. The answer was "if it ain't broke..."
I'm not Raul fan, but unless there's other candidates pressing for the job, there's hardly a need for an election. Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia, it has to my mind far too many elections. Having another one for the sake of democracy seems to be stupid.
However, if you want the job, I'll happily set up a page for people to vote between you and Raul.
It shouldn't really be all that controversial to argue that an important position shouldn't be filled indefinitely, with no elections, by someone who appointed himself. I would be happy to do the job, but since at the moment I apparently can't even pass an RfA, I think my prospects would be rather dim--especially in some mock, non-binding poll set up by you.
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 20th December 2009, 1:35am)
Is there a Deputy FA Director or a successor to Raul? If Raul disappears or is unable to continue working on Wikipedia, who has the permissions to handle FAs, if even on an interim basis? Just curious.
It seems suitable that someone would take the position the same way Raul did--you just start doing the job, and if anyone challenges you, ignore them. Eventually, it gets to a point where everyone is accustomed with it and people excuse the situation by saying "if it ain't broke..."
Of course, that kind of thing might not work on Wikipedia as it is now. Raul's ability to hang onto a self-appointed-for-life position might be nothing more than a relic of an earlier time, which couldn't be replicated by anyone else.