On 9/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/06, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I completely disagree with this; I would much, much rather know *more*
about
the people I'm voting for, rather than less
[snip]
So are you honestly saying that you'd spend 14 hours reading candidate statements?
If thats true I suspect that you would be alone.
Sorry, are we talking about the same projects? 'Cause I'm talking about the projects where people spend days (years) arguing about process and whether Pokemon is notable (among other time-consuming activities). I suspect that there will certainly be people in this environment who will happily spend 14 hours reading candidate statements; I for one would welcome the opportunity to do so. What other people choose to read or not read is irrelevant to my own decision-making processes.
As for translation, which is of course very important, I think the best solution is probably more or less what's been done for this election -- make sure that every candidate provides a short statement of approximately equal length; make sure that this statement is assiduously translated into as many languages as possible; but then allow (and encourage) candidates to post as much additional material as they wish, in whatever language(s) they are comfortable in, with no guarantee it will get translated. The fact that some candidates will have more materials than others is no more unfair than the fact that some candidates are more voluble on the mailing lists, or that some have global rights and are thus perhaps better known across projects than those who don't, or that some candidates come from en: and have thus perhaps interacted with more potential voters, etc. etc.
-- phoebe