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@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@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.