robert_horning at netzero.net
Sun Apr 8 14:11:56 UTC 2007
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
> considere translacioun.
> You always run the risk of tl;dr. While obviously some voters are
> going to be all enthusiastic and willing to read anything you write, I
> think the majority is going to have the type of mentality where they
> do respond to long statements with a hearty "tl;dr".
Unlike elections for admin or other actions on projects involving
personalities, very few Wikimedia users are going to know any of the
individuals who are running for a position on the board. I know in the
last election I felt a little overwhelmed at trying to even find out
what the key issues that were of concern, and it was even harder to see
who might have philosophies that were similar to what I thought should
be happening as well. In a very short statement of just 50 words, I
don't see how you can address even a single issue, much less multiple
Long is relative as well. It just doesn't seem like there should be
some arbitrary limits if candidates are are actually covering issues. I
agree that any such statement ought to be concise, and in the interest
of helping translators be as brief as possible.
And as your reply has indicated, it should be free of obscure acronyms
that are not defined.or understood by a large audience.
More information about the foundation-l