On 29/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's "rough consensus", which basically means supermajority with a
slight weighting of votes based on reasons given. It's not a pure vote
(at least, it's not meant to be), but it's certainly not consensus. We
rarely get a true consensus on any Rf(A|B) - it would essentially
require 100% support (there is a difference between consensus and
unanimity but with a format like RfA [which discourages discussion],
that difference is minimal).
Yeah, consensus is supposed to be a general agreement of everyone. With
people passing despite serious concerns, it's hardly communal agreement.
The requirements for crats should certainly be higher than for admins
(since crats need to be admins too). That can be done
either by people
being harsher in their votes, by the required percentage being higher,
or a combination of the two. Since people are a lot harsher in their
votes, the percentage doesn't need to be much (if at all) higher - 90%
is probably a little excessive.
I'm not entirely sure here, but only the RfBs that have passed have garnered
over 75% of the vote (there may be an exception or two). The point is,
people will be tougher on RfBs, especially knowing the % will be the same.
Making it 90% (where did that number come from?) is rather unnecessarily
high. I don't agree requirements should be higher for 'crats - as I've
stated, their job is easier than being an admin, despite what most people
would have you believe.