[WikiEN-l] Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

[Nathan]

Oh I agree, but I think when we're talking about having a higher bar for
RfBs (which I also don't agree with) then restricting who can vote makes
more sense than changing the passing %. A % sufficient to show consensus is
a % sufficient to show consensus, in other words, but if you want you can
have a "consensus of trusted editors."

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29/02/2008, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 90% is a giant hurdle to get over, even for the best candidates.
> Perhaps,
> > if
> > the bar needs to be higher than it is for adminship (and I'm not
> convinced
> > about that, since the questions being posed are different and the votes
> > change accordingly)... Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to
> > admins
> > only.
> >
> > Nathan
>
>
> Oh please. The 'crats get the job of sorting out the tough RfAs, when the
> community (the majority of whom are non-admins) is not voting uniformly.
> They also manage CHU, which affects non-admins at least equally as admins.
>
> Remember when adminship was no big deal?  Well, we are seeing a continual
> creep in the "big-dealness" of adminship.  Selection of those whose
> actions
> affect the community as a whole should be made by the community as a
> whole.
>
>
> Risker
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>