2,791
edits
Forum:Merge Staff: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
As for the inactive situation, I totally agree that we should have some kind of policy to define a staffer as inactive and make way for new staff, always allowing the old people to come back, if they so desire it.}} | As for the inactive situation, I totally agree that we should have some kind of policy to define a staffer as inactive and make way for new staff, always allowing the old people to come back, if they so desire it.}} | ||
{{Asif|sho=I agree with the inactive staff rule. As for merge/re-elect, I have an idea: first we merge the staff, then mark inactive staffers as inactive and elect new people in their place. I feel like that would be a fair compromise. If not, I am fine with merging the staff- even if it is a little sad that many staff-worthy editors would be left out in that case.}} | |||