Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-4787430-20140222001935/@comment-24325144-20140222192323

3 months simply isn't enough time to make an assessment, if it were 3 months many of the people here would have lost their positions. By doing that we would be saying, at no time are you to take any breaks from the wiki or your position is to be removed. People have lives outside of the wiki & 3 months isn't very much time. These are voluntary positions, we take time out of our own lives to do this. If it were to be less then a year, 9 months like Flugsmith proposed or 6 months like Pink Slim mentioned, but I think 6 months might be a reach as well. 9 months I think should be the bare minimum, as it has already been pointed out, there is no limit for these positions, & so removal of their positions should only be done either by them abusing it, or not being fit for the position. If activity eventually becomes an issue, then they should be removed, but only after an extended tim. Otherwise we would be saying everything they have done for the wiki wasn't appreciated essentially. As for the other thing, I agree with Timeoin, they would most likely get neutral or opposition votes. I came to that conclusion with the direction the re-evaluation threads went.