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@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l