Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins

Two things
I believe in theory this is a good idea. I believe in practice it will be a logistical nightmare. Theoretically and potentially, it could yield an improvement in the selection of admins, however the trouble with the format is that people often don't care about throwing their hat in the ring unless it counts for a vote, even though the votes are technically a basic numeric guide and not the truest guide adhered by. It's just a matter of bending people against human nature for three days in which they're required to do something that only few will attend and by the time voting begins, the established discussion could already have launched fully into a feudal shit-fight. Now, that said, I don't think discussion is the correct term for what we're after. I believe questions may be made mandatory (within reason, save for ridiculous questions) and the discussion of the responses from these questions, within the question's general space, could go on for this time. Following this, question time is OVER (so get in quick) and then the count begins. Discussion relating to why votes are being cast then are placed. An important thing to note is to change Neutral votes to neutral discussion and give reasons as to why support and opposition cannot be given, because they don't count for a vote. -- linca linca  11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reason
I'd say another good reason is that such aproposal will reduce the number of "Neutral pending my question" votes, which can evolve into their own useless discussions as to the propriety of the question or the concept of requring an answer to vote. This lag period will permit answers before voting and cut down on this issue.  MBisanz  Talk 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
I have a question about how the purposed process is expected to work. After the 2 days have been used up and the RfA turns to the voting phase, is discussion still allowed? I suppose one could assume that it still would be, but in some elections, the discussion ends once the voting begins. Captain  panda  14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WT:RFA
Please see the (considerably more active) thread at WT:RFA. Consensus there appears to be opposed to this proposal. Avruch talk 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Been here, done this...
....at WP:DFA where the problems with proposals of this nature are gone over on the talk page and its archives at great length. As far as I can see, that proposal and this are essentially identical in their functional purpose. Splash - tk 13:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)