Really? I don't think any part of it is "intentional." What it is is unplanned. Based on the way the talkpage is going, I can pretty much guarantee you that in a relatively short period of time some approval guidelines will be established. First its the most basic elements of process (approve/deny templates, archiving, wait period) and then it moves on from there. People will find problems that bother them, others will suggest possible solutions, someone will implement it and then you will need consensus (65%) to remove unnecessary solutions to problems that aren't problems.
On Jan 10, 2008 2:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't look like a strict review is being done, there are no guidelines as to what appropriate history should look like, what to tell people who are denied (can they ask again? how long do they wait?), how long someone should be up for review (I've seen a day, an hour, 24 hours, a "few hours" etc.).
I think that's intentional to reduce bureaucracy. The way I understand it, the idea is that a single admin is enough to promote, there is no need to give anyone else a chance to review. If an admin decides, in their judgement (which is considered trustworthy, otherwise they wouldn't have passed RfA), that the person can be trusted with rollback, then they can give it to them. There isn't meant to be a complicated and detailed review process.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l