On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My suggestion has always been the same: define objective measurements
that candidates must reach, and reduce voting down to either 'they
satisfy the objective measurement, or they don't". Regular voters hate
power being taken out of their hands so shout down the idea.
Alternatively, have (reasonably) objective standards as to what
factors the community regards as important in assessing bureaucrat
candidates, to give closers better guidance on which opinions command
much weight, and which are more idiosyncratic and can be accorded less
weight.
I tried to do something along these lines for RFA a while back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Factors
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Riana
<wiki.riana(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And as an aside - I count 4 edits from me to
Kelly's RfA. Apparently
0.012%of my edits have been heinously destructive. :o)
Didn't ya know that Kelly is Teh Antichrist whose touch is death?
The reaper is coming for me eventually then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Deceā¦
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com