User talk:Tznkai/sandbox

Electoral commission RfC
Trying to throw this together quickly. Questions:
 * Should the volunteers make statements? If any, they should be very brief.
 * Yes, very brief self-nominating statements including the person's qualifications and experience, if any, as an elections official on Wikipedia (and/or elsewhere if they wish, and believe it is relevant.) On a related note, I think the RfC page should be edited to make clear whether the role of Election Commissioner includes the responsibilities previously carried out by the three Election Administrators.  In other words, there will no longer be EA's, now there will be EC's who will do what the EA's formerly did, and now they will also have authority to make decisions as the RfC page already states.  At least, that is what I have inferred from your proposal.  If any of what I have just said is NOT correct, that needs to be made clear as well. Neutron (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure is the problem. The EA role is not clearly defined or mandated anywhere, I imagine it will fold into the EC, but that isn't definitive. However, as that would be a dispute, the EC would have jurisdiction.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What format will allow the community to have input, but not turn this into a.) a circus or b.) an election?
 * I guess the options include (1) having Support, Oppose and Neutral sections for each candidate, and people can include comments with their "votes" so it is sort of a hybrid election/discussion, then go by the support percentages; i.e. the way ArbCom elections were run when there was non-secret balloting, which was derived from how RfA's were run; (2) only ask for Supports, with discussion, and I guess the most Supports wins. Maybe #2B could be Supports with very limited or no discussion, but that then looks like a pure election.  However, both #1 and #2 are at least partially elections as well.  I do not see any way to completely avoid this being an "election".  Any process where a group of people collectively choose among volunteers, or candidates, or whatever you wish to call them, to fill a limited number of seats, is essentially an election.  Unless someone has a better option than the ones I have mentioned, my (weak) preference would be #2.  Another question, which I will not try to answer right now, is whether editors would be able to ask questions of the candidates -- and have them answered -- and if so, how.  Neutron (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts on this, going to structure it with #2 baked in, and let the rest fall as they may.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)