On 10/20/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I generally only participate in RfAs where I know the
editor who has
been nominated (and thus feel qualified to make a judgment), or where
I am so impressed that I feel justified in making a judgment despite
not knowing them.
I may be setting the bar for participation too low here, and I am sure
that there are many deserving candidates who I have not supported who
turn out to be great admins whom I work well with once they are
promoted. Nevertheless, my underlying criterion remains whether I
trust the person to exercise good judgment.
I figure either I should know someone previously, or spend the time to
research them enough to determine if they have good judgement.
For many of the RFAs, I let it go for a while and determine that they aren't
showing me enough within the RFA itself to justify me investing a good
fraction of an hour to study their editing habits.
I'm not sure if that's good for the process overall or not. But I don't
have the time to personally follow up reading the last 500 edits made by
everyone who gets nominated. To some degree, I rely on the process of
others who know the person coming along and either posting a good enough
"Support" comment that it piques my interest or posting something in the
"Oppose" section that attracts interest.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com