On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think that's probably a good observation and comparison, but could you expand on which qualities the RfA process you'd like to avoid?
The primary things I had in mind were:
- 'Positioning', which I guess is people going 'I am going to be doing this because it'll help me in my RfA' or worse, 'I want to do this but I won't since it will look bad in RfA review'. - 'Badgering', which is people digging back someone's editing history to see if they can find specific things to discredit them. There are a number of RfAs that were rejected because of something from the past that does not actually have much to do with the actual ability of the person to be an enwiki admin.
People who have more enwiki experience than me can probably provide more points, but these were the ones that stood out to me.
Both of these don't seem to be things that will affect the developer community as much, so it might not be as bad an issue. But if we *do* go the route of Option D, I think enwiki's system is one to study so we don't fall into the same traps.