On  Wikipedia, the best  way  to  be involved with  a discussion like that is to follow all  of it, all of the time. Where these 'perennial' discussions never lead to progress is because so many  people chip in without knowing what has been previously  discussed - a typical  example is User:Protonk who leaps in with a TLDR speech, but does not offer one single solution then complains at me because I have the decency - and the civility - not to name names, and not to  take his bait. I always have a distrust for admins who can't keep a civil tongue in  their heads. The real reason, and it's been confirmed dozens of times, why people won't run for office (whatever year they  started editing  the Wikipedia),  is because they  are just  not prepared to  go  through  the ordeal that RfA has become. Period. With  the exception  of two or three who  failed on technicalities in  2010/2011, all  the others that  failed shouldn't  even have wasted our time with  their applications anyway. I  mean, just  look  through them. Many people want to be admins for all the wrong reasons -  some even join  Wikipedia with  the intention of wanting  to  be an admin as soon  as possible. Take a deep breath, look back, and try to figure out why, for example I have never run for adminship in spite of my  maturity (61, retired professor), 26,000 edits since 2006, squeaky clean record (no  warnings, blocks, or deleted files or pages), civility, clue, and helpfulness (WP:EAR - 350 user questions answered), balanced involvement  in  Wikpedia policy  development (NPP,  BLP, 100 page creations and some GA, and micromanaging  a major project). Then you  have the answer. Keep  the questions coming )