On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
You fire a torpedo, you're likely to get a few ashcans dumped on your head, even if the ship is dead in the water.
If civility was an issue, that would show up anyway. Bringing this up with no prior warning was severely below the belt, and the originating CU and everyone backing his tactics should be ashamed of themselves. All that this will achieve, as I mentioned in the RFA, is to reduce, yet again, the number of users willing to go through the nightmare that is RFA. Was that the plan?
Is there no end to these bizarre conspiracy theories? There is no lack of candidates for what you term "the nightmare of RFA", but which is for most, in fact, a cake-walk. Currently there are 12 candidates, nine of which look likely to succeed, and this is a typical week in that respect. The process produces at least one new admin/day, and most pass with well over 80% support.