On 7/18/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
<snippage>
As long as minimum subjective line of our community member's involvement sense matter, I think we don't need a new poll.
. . .
<snip> . . . > As part of Election committee, I personally think the requirements of > this year was reasonable, but review is always welcome, specially > based on census, poll or whatever.
Hmm. I am confused. Are you against a poll or for it?
I am afraid you simplified my responses too much.
For the first quote, I pointed out we don't need to poll to learn what type of complaint exists. I don't even oppose "I feel myself qualified but Eleccom said differently. Yeeek" type pole. But from talk page interactions, I think we know already what kind of claims we have. For that purpose, we have not to have a poll. The claimed minimum line is "all editors including anons", and I don't think there is a much lower requirement.
For the second quote, rational review of rules and policies are always helpful in my opinion, specially when we know some grumbling about that. Such polls would however be different from the suggested at first, and I strongly suggest it should be intersubjective, what type of requirement the community or at least the majority of the community think adequate, ideally regardless how it affects themselves.
On my part I think people are over-complicating things.
Either we need to tighten the voting requirements, so that we keep the franchise to those who care about the core of our values, or we need to keep things as close to current level as possible, or we need to see if we can involve a broader franchise.
Those are the three options (with some nuancing possible on each of them of course). Kim suggests one route, as I see it, Jimbo suggested the other, and if I read it correctly, you were kind of tending towards the middle ground.
What I have yet to see is a coherent argument for any of these three positions. From any corner.
Jimbo appeared to approach matters from a philosophic POV, without many specifics. Kim appeared to feel he needed to champion some broader mass of discontent, and you, again, if I read you correctly, were trying to sound a note pointing out that somebody actually has to administer the votes, and somebody will always complain, but solutions that satisfy everybody are hard to come by.
If my first response was too simple, I apologize. I hope this is not to verbose.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]