This is what constables are supposed to be doing. If we don't have enough constables doing the work, we should get more constables on board (if possible). Constables are also the people who do the mechanics of the work of approving articles.
I have a slightly different take, which is that constables have two basically separate roles, one involving
behaviour, and enforcing policies etc, and the other involving access to certain technical capabilities.
I would assume that the set of people who are fitted for
both of these roles is smaller than the set of people who are suitable for just the second. Also, there are people who don't want the responsibility of the behaviour/enforcement aspect of Constables (in some cases, 'been there, done that'), but can contribute usefully in ways that need access to certain restricted tools to be able to contribute.
The 'janitor' proposal was simply trying to recognize that reality. (Indeed, we already have people who are sysops, but aren't constables - so we basically already have them, we just don't have a name for them as a class.)
I would rather not designate people with real power and authority as "janitors."
But the point is that my proposed janitors would
have no 'power' or 'authority', as those words are conventionally thought of - precisely as real janitors, who although they have keys to all the offices, almost nobody would describe as having 'power' or 'authority'.
That is how Wikipedia administrators like to talk about themselves. In the beginning, it might have started out that way. But then those people ended up having (and using and abusing) substantial authority.
The difference is that Wikipedia admins
do have power and authority (in addition to access to certain technical tools). That would not be true of the 'janitors' I am proposing.
I am absolutely committed to disallowing that from happening on CZ. There is a reason we used the word "constables" for people who actually have authority: it's honest.
No disagreement with any of that.
In short, I've always thought that we should not multiply roles unnecessarily.
Any society, as it gets larger, develops more specialized roles. I definitely agree with the "unnecessarily", though, so the question is 'is this necessary (yet)'?
As long as we can solve the problem this is meant to solve by simply adding more constables, I see no need for another whole layer of authority.
We're not exactly overflowing with people-power. If making some people who are currently ordinary contributors into 'janitors' makes less work for them, and less work for the existing Constables, I would think that's a good thing, no? (And, again, there's no 'authority' involved, at least as I normally think of 'authority'.)
Put another way, if there are no people who are a) trustable with the key-ring, but either b-i) don't want the badge, or b-ii) are unsuitable for the badge, then fine, there's nothing lost by not having janitors. But if there
are such people on the project, and we don't have a 'janitor' class for them, then both they and the Constables are operating less efficiently than they otherwise might.
Noel
