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