I answered this private message from Jeff thinking it was to the list,
then checked with him and he said he'd intended it to go to the list
... so here it is.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: 18-Apr-2007 16:03
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Major dysfunction in RfA Culture
To: jeff.raymond
On 18/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
> As you would have noticed if you'd read
above, oppose voters need a
> decent justification for opposing, as candidates are assumed not
> dangerous unless opposed with a decent reason. So the cases are not
> symmetrical.
> If that wasn't the point of your question, please clarify at greater
> length.
The question is why don't support voters need a
decent justification for
supporting?
That would be the question I just answered.
Why not require support voters to demonstrate trust
instead
of only assuming the good faith of those supporting the candidate?
Because adminship is No Big Deal. Anyone who's been around a while and
won't actually damage the wiki with the tools should have them.
As such, "support" votes are presumed to echo the nominator; "oppose"
votes need a reason.
The bar at RFA is stupidly high and we should have three times the
number of admins we do now, at least. That you didn't pass is
completely stupid of RFA, for example.
- d.