User talk:NoSeptember/Intent to file RfA
Purpose of proposal
[edit](this proposal can be used voluntarily by candidates, and has been modified since some of the comments below were added) NoSeptember 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
isn't this very bureaucratic? --Kim Bruning 01:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was about to say the same. >Radiant< 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I put this out as an alternative to the oft-repeated idea of a discuss first, vote later proposals, where people seem to be unable to think outside of the box to move beyond where those proposals are stuck at now. I don't actually think that we need this sort of "intent to file" idea, but the idea of some sort of pre-RfA step or discussion with potential candidates pre-RfA may work in some other context that someone will think of. NoSeptember 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the discuss-then-vote option is being opposed by people who just like being able to fire-and-forget on RFAs. Cognitive laziness, sort of thing. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea though. >Radiant< 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But telling people they can't vote once an RfA is open is also not going to be a popular thing and will be heavily opposed. So, it occurred to me that people can't vote, nor complain about not be able to vote, if the RfA doesn't yet exist (or is not live yet). In other words, allowing for discussion without enforcing a vote prohibition. That's sort of the idea behind the 48 hour pre-RfA period that is announced to the world, to encourage pre-RfA (and pre-voting) discussion by all. NoSeptember 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose this would be a good start then. >Radiant< 11:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But telling people they can't vote once an RfA is open is also not going to be a popular thing and will be heavily opposed. So, it occurred to me that people can't vote, nor complain about not be able to vote, if the RfA doesn't yet exist (or is not live yet). In other words, allowing for discussion without enforcing a vote prohibition. That's sort of the idea behind the 48 hour pre-RfA period that is announced to the world, to encourage pre-RfA (and pre-voting) discussion by all. NoSeptember 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the discuss-then-vote option is being opposed by people who just like being able to fire-and-forget on RFAs. Cognitive laziness, sort of thing. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea though. >Radiant< 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I put this out as an alternative to the oft-repeated idea of a discuss first, vote later proposals, where people seem to be unable to think outside of the box to move beyond where those proposals are stuck at now. I don't actually think that we need this sort of "intent to file" idea, but the idea of some sort of pre-RfA step or discussion with potential candidates pre-RfA may work in some other context that someone will think of. NoSeptember 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Timing
[edit]- I like the idea (and used something similar before I ran, albeit with a much longer discussion period due to my own insecurities), but I don't know how well Point 1's "must" language will go over. There is some merit to reclaiming the morass that is Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls though, and perhaps as an optional step it can weed out some hopeless cases. How much overlap is there with the effective (if not stated) purpose of Editor Review? -- nae'blis 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- The timing is an important issue. The general category of hopeful admins and listing oneself on editor's review etc. is often done months before the candidate is ready to submit their RfA. What is needed is something for people who are very close to the point of starting their RfA. I include both a 48 hour minimum (to allow time for discussion) and a 7 day maximum (to clean out from the list those who have not followed up with an RfA) to keep the list focused just on those who are imminently about to start their RfA. We want discussion, but we only want discussion on serious candidates that are ready to go forward now. Also, it is not intended to be advice to the candidate, but a serious discussion about the candidate by the community which the candidate may not even need to participate in. NoSeptember 11:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like the idea (and used something similar before I ran, albeit with a much longer discussion period due to my own insecurities), but I don't know how well Point 1's "must" language will go over. There is some merit to reclaiming the morass that is Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls though, and perhaps as an optional step it can weed out some hopeless cases. How much overlap is there with the effective (if not stated) purpose of Editor Review? -- nae'blis 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)