Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24841964-20150704051540/@comment-4332975-20150706215611

No, I'd say that you just about nailed it, Urkel. Removing admins at best achieves nothing, and at worst burns bridges. I know that at least one admin we had left to raise a kid, which is important and shouldn't be held against them. For me, personally, the issue has been that I have many interests, and finite time. My job regularly keeps me out of synch with most people's schedules, and so I try to pack as much socializing as I can into the few days off I get, and my online interests haven't been kept up with as much as a result. (Though, that said, I could probably find the time to stop lurking and poke my head out more in the off moments I do have, since I am awake at times when no one else is, now and often.)

The point is, a few new admins might do some good, but we should really have an understanding of what is and isn't needed.

Is it unfortunate that we have a lot of inactive admins? Yes, a little.

Will taking away their power help that? No it won't.

Will leaving them admins hurt anything? Probably not, and remote though the chance might be, the fact that it could help in the long run is better than nothing.

Should we get some new admins? Maybe. I can't comment on the backlog right now, but things have always been a bit slow here. Security through obscurity may not be the best way to stay safe, but it does mean, as LiaM even notes, that we don't actually need a lot of admins to be active. Even if we had all our admins active, though, it's worth noting that you just can't catch everything. Sometimes, edits get made when no one is on, buried under new submissions, and go undetected for months. Sometimes, two people each assume that the other one has "Totally got this." and neither one responds. Sometimes, you just have to work with what you have, not what you wish you had...but then, I'm not Mutahar, and the final decisions when it comes to admins will have to come down to him.