Although it risked some false positives (catching good, active janitors who happened to be out of contact with the site during the window), the alternative had greater risk of false negatives (alerting inactive janitors to jump in and request continued membership). Given previous attempts to cull inactive members from privileged groups, I think the level of sneakiness was appropriate.
It seems to me that reducing the false positives (you are a bunch of smart folks with access to logins and what not) would supercede culling inactive members as a top priority for obvious reasons. I am more than a little suprised to see that a no exception policy is being made and that this was done with the foreknowledge that people would be affected for no good reason.
Things would have to get a lot worse for me to leave the site but this change in behavior seems wrong to me. I fully admit more may be happening behind the scenes that would warrant this attitude but I am confused as to why that behavior would remain hidden from the general populace but acts to correct it would not. Whatever. Thanks for all your years of service.
Cheers - L~R
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
Re^5: How do janitors get fired? (sneaky)
by GrandFather (Sage) on Jan 10, 2007 at 21:15 UTC