final five recommendations
The backlog is a significant issue. But we can tackle it, if we discuss it. If we get more people involved in FAs, it's possible we could actually reduce the backlog. (e.g.: by requesting that people who nominate featured articles also participate in other FA nominations)
The challenge with "senior editors" is we want the status to be granted by consensus. WikiNews currently does a simple vote on each nominee, but Sue Gardner cautioned us against that. On larger projects like Wikipedia, the politics of RFA have gotten ugly, and senior editors shouldn't be a political position. Featured Articles are one of the few ways we can measure the quality of a contribution that still reflects consensus. Yeah, I'm sure there are FA discussions that get controversial, but I can't envision a standard for "senior editors" that somehow reflects consensus while avoiding controversy. Where you find consensus-building, you find at least some controversy.
We can definitely lower/change the bar for "senior editors", but the standard would have to:
- Reflect community consensus about reputation/quality
- Avoid some kind of political vote on nominees (although nominees could volunteer to undergo a vote if they are an exceptional case)
I think we agree this is an issue, so let's see what suggestions people have.