I'm not sure who you might have been speaking to in your post on Blue's wall, but as far as I am concerned, you are free to privately ask for my input on why I do something. And, if you are not comfortable with the processes the community voted for (twice, in fact), it might be more helpful to draft a different policy than to merely indirectly insult people.
I am referring to anyone (including myself) who holds and trumpets these opinions. It is not my intent to "insult" anyone. It is my intent to have them see this through my eyes, if only for a few minutes. I think it is helpful to see how actions or lack of them look to regular users once in awhile. I think it is obvious that I am outraged that thus far...no admin has provided a vouch. I did not feel it appropriate to approach the admins in secret and ask them. It might be seen as me trying to get votes for the candidate in an unseemly way. I see how this is going. Before it's too late, I'm hoping that admins would see how it looks to the regular users...and consider their positions. I have thought of drafting a new policy...but I don't feel that the admins would ever agree to any reduction of their control.
I'm sorry you feel insulted Katie. You know I would never deliberately insult you. That's just the way it looks to me from the outside. And you are not the only admin. There are others who would certainly never agree to what I have in mind, even though you might.
Katie, I understand that. But staff's opinions carry a greater weight in community discussions, particularly staff who are greatly respected as you are. As you know, I was a silent member of this community for a year before I registered. I've been here a long time. I've watched and observed the many changes DV wiki has gone through, some of them good and some of them not so good. At this present time, I have neither the energy nor the time to present a proposed change in chat mod policy and defend it for a week. But if anyone cares to consider what I think about it...chat mods should not have to have the required # of quality edits. Some people only want to work in the chat room and have no ambitions beyond that. If they subsequently want to advance further, they can demonstrate that by increased activity in quality edits, projects and showing other leadership skills and after a suitable amount of time hope someone might notice and nominate them.
Oh, then I guess what I was told was incorrect. I hope it was. I just feel very strongly about this. I know others do too. It's just that I've seen other nominations getting an admin vouch within minutes of it being announced. I just hope that Wolfie at least gets the chance to go through the process. I think everyone should have that chance as long as they meet the requirements. Katie, I think you know that I hold you in great esteem. You have done so much for this wiki and for me personally. I can't imagine what it would look like without your leadership. So I apologize if you feel my remarks were directed to you specifically. They were directed to all the admins. I just wanted someone to hear our voice. This was the way I chose. If you feel it was inappropriate, I'm sorry. It was the way I felt I could best express my feelings and the feelings of others.
Sorry, I am jumping in. As Celtic mentioned and I have mentioned on the other post which this is regarding. Vouches are open for a week, it has only been three days so far, so we still have more than half the time span to have vouches cast.
I am sure there are reasons why there is not one at the moment, such as a common one being, as Celtic also mentioned, that sometimes admins like to take closer observation during the nomination period before deciding whether or not to cast a vouch.
Also, as DT mentioned, in the requirement there is no edit requirement needed. For each position the requirements for the role are listed in the first post on the thread for reference, as well as the staff procedures page in the second switch.
I am happy you feel comfortable enough to express your concerns on the wiki. I'd rather see them than you keep them to yourself.
In fairness, also, Rianza, at least one admin (me) has carefully considered this and has provided input to Wolfie several times on this topic, so it's not just a matter of waiting a while to see how things go.
Sometimes an Admin vouch is given immediately because the Admin feels strongly that the user is ready for the position. Sometimes one is not given because the Admin feels strongly that the user is not ready.
This is why I like the current system; many nominations are made for which some user (you, in this case) passionately support it while another person may be aware of some issues or concerns and not be able to provide an Admin vouch in which they must write all the reasons they support the candidate.
BUT-if the community eventually wants to move away from having Admin input on staffing decisions, so be it. I certainly would not "object to reduction of...control" even if I decided, personally, to vote against a specific proposal.
Katie, I know you wouldn't. But let's say I proposed to do aways with "consensus" voting by the admins for a nomination to proceed. That gives 1 person control of the whole process. They can in effect "blackball" someone from being promoted, even if all the admins have done their best to persuade them and they are not taking any notice of the wishes of the community. This must have been put in while I was ill, because I would never have consented to that! One person...can stop someone else from being promoted. If that's not control..(and power) I don't know what is. But enough of my rant. That isn't the isuue, and I'm not prepared to do anything about it at this time, so 'nuff said". But these things disturb me deeply.
The one thing that helps in the "vetting" is that if an Admin blocks someone, that Admin must publicly state the issues and provide input on what the user might do to "improve" for future options.
The "admin vetting" came from other wikis; I was also kind of surprised it was supported. I think what we gain from having that, as much as it could be abused, is that sometimes we may know things about a user that it might not be good to share on the public discussion. For example, if I found out a user had lied about their age for a long time, I may not say that in the public discussion, but it might be a reason that I share with other admins to be considered.
It's never going to be perfect, but the discussion is always valuable.