On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:45:23AM +0100, geni wrote:
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
- Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.
- Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should just know.
- Has strong opinions on userboxes
After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little twitchy about that one.
- Hasn't done anything stupid
Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is something I like to se in admins.
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for people they already know about.
Exactly. That is what I do. Who are these people who chase through every nominees contributions when they do not know them?
-- geni