[Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

[Brian]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Recentist? Ignoring the, ahem, fanciful language you've chosen, I'd like
>> to
>> throw my support behind the voting qualifications wholeheartedly.
>> For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license
>> once
>> doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life. This isn't just
>> about what will "skew the results" with ballot stuffing. It's about giving
>> suffrage to people who can make an informed decision that will positively
>> affect the work of the community by getting adequate representation on the
>> Board.
>> Steven Walling
>>
>
> You have only said that you support the current plan, without making an
> argument as to why it is beneficial. There is no information in the current
> heuristic that indicates that the editor is more or less familiar with the
> candidates than an editor who does not. Given that it is an international
> election it is quite likely the case that many of the people who are
> qualified to vote are not familiar with the majority of the candidates and
> they will have to read up on them. I argued in my original post that the
> heuristic does not distinguish between the capability of people that it
> captures and people it does not to make an informed and valid ranking
> decision about the candidates. To reiterate, you simply said you agree with
> the current plan without arguing that this is false.
>

The second sentence should read: There is no information in the current
heuristic that indicates that editors who are allowed to vote are more or
less familiar with the candidates than those who are not.