I don't mind the idea of a revocable GLE. That does seem reasonable and fair. Here's my take on it:
Anyone who does not perform well in a given period can have GLE taken away from them after going through a review (Given how long writing can take, I'd say somewhere from every 6 months to a year).
This review doesn't check activity, but rather, the performance of their last several pages.
- If someone has not posted any pages in the timeframe for the review, they are given a pass due to having no pages to review (They did not write any poor pages, so they get a free pass for that period. People sometimes have busy lives and other interests, and not having time for writing should not impact their writing capabilities).
- Having all well-performing pages that meet this standard also passes.
- If they post several pages that perform lower than a given quota/standard, then they have GLE revoked and must publish another set of pages through the GL process that meet the standards that originally granted them GLE. If the standard is 3 pages at +15 or higher, then they must meet this standard again, taking into account tales and contest entries of course. The same goes for any new standard.
I personally like a strike system. Some poorly performing pages is okay, but too many strikes in a review period, and you're out! Not every idea is liked, and that's okay. Authors need *some* room for error. Of course, this will take into account tales and contest entries, so the exact quotas for each page that determines these strikes may vary based on the kind of page. It could be three strikes, two, or some other number. We do want to make it fair enough to allow for some error, but not so strict that people who are qualified frequently lose GLE due to a few mistakes.
If someone nearly reaches the strike limit during one review, there could be some kind of trial to allow them to keep their GLE, but need the next few pages to be signed off by a GLer before posting (This is just a once read through and approval/rejection. Not an in-depth critique or anything). And of course these pages must be successful to continue keeping their GLE. If the pages fail, the GLE can still be removed next review. This means staff cannot outright remove or give GLE outside of meeting or failing the requirements, but they can deem individual cases to need a push to improve quality through this GLer sign off system.
I suppose you could always enforce this signoff system, but I think that unless someone shows that they need a push towards improvement, it's not strictly necessary. Doing it as I suggested above also gives authors who prove themselves a little more freedom to do as they please. Critique and a GLer signoff is always an option, but only a requirement to those who show they need it.
If keeping track of who needs a GLer signoff is a concern, then you can have some kind of list or document for that, or even announce the results of reviews publicly, much like you do for page greenlights.
As for the standards to achieve GLE in general, I don't mind increasing it a little.
My suggestion would follow in line with Eden's suggestions quite a bit:
+20 for non-contest, non-tale pages
+15 for non-contest tales
+25 for non-tale contest pages
+20 for tale contest pages
A slight increase for contest entries, and a slight decrease for tales. Contest tales become the normal page rating. And of course, other page types might get their own values to meet, depending on how many people read them.
This also acts in a way as a compromise between all the differing opinions I've seen so far. It restricts the staff biases and prevents staff abuse, and it allows people who put the hard work in the right to GLE. It can work whether you alter the initial GLE requirements or not, and it also allows a way for staff to give a push to those who need it. You can also use the GLE tag for pages to help determine which pages are used for the reviews to revoke GLE, and which ones to review to grant GLE. I like the idea of the tag.
Overall, this system is fair. It isn't too strict, and it allows room for freedom and growth.
I am also fine with the system remaining as-is, but if people deem it to need change, then these are my thoughts on that.
(account deleted)