h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just wanting to know more about how you see the arbiters coming into being...


1)

"Therefore my vote for the candidate is [YES / NO]."

Is this meant to imply that people will be able to vote against someone becoming an arbiter as well as for someone becoming an arbiter?

2) How many Arbiters do you envisage as being enough to be going on with?

I guess you are hoping to recieve many more nominations than required, in order that some clear victors will come out ahead at the time of the election?

3.1)How many nominations need to be recieved before a potential arbiter becomes a candidate?

3.2)IN a worse case not enough candidates and voters scenario: Will there be a minimum number of votes required to elect a candidate, this number to be exceeded before any candidate can be given the post?

It seems that the majority of h2g2 researchers do not spend that much time logged on (90 000 registrated, less than 100 online at any one time), so obviously any quorum decided upon will be considerably less than 50 percent of those eligible to vote (was how many three months ago? 80 000?), but is there some minimum number of researchers who must register their approval for a candidate before they are put up for election or after election given the title arbiter?

thanks for listening,
vp

"Is this meant to imply that people will be able to vote against someone becoming an arbiter as well as for someone becoming an arbiter?"
Yes. Point being that someone might know about a not-heavily frequented thread where candidate X stuffed up badly.

"How many Arbiters do you envisage as being enough to be going on with?"
13 was the number floating about in the ADT. Things may be different now, seeing the Italics reaction. The ADT will reconsider parts of the scheme.

Number of votes: We were going to play the thing by ear (if I remember correctly). There was no need to get theat deeply into details before the scheme isn't approved or the actual elections start to happen. I should imagine that 50 votes for an Arbiter-Candidate would be a lot. Look at any conversation how many are there with 50+ participants?

In any case we're ATM re-organising after the Italics reaction.

HTH

Tube

Looking forward to editor orientated amendments...

50 votes for one arbiter would be huge I agree... the problem being that any elected arbiter will have quite a large responsibility on them should they ever get called up in on official capacity... so to weed out doubtfulls, maybe one properly referenced vote against a candidate would be enough to stop their campaign, but then who decides whether or not that that vote against a candidate was fair or not?

Presumably last veto on suitable candidates would ideally come from the editors, but if they want it to start off as a community based scheme then where does the original power come from?

Will stop this wondering aloud now until you guys have worked things over, dont want to unnecessarily distract you guys when your doing so well already...

for now, vp

*Hopes someone's still paying attention*

This system makes sense to me: allowing Researchers to vote against candidates. One question, though: is this *the* vote? Researchers are only allowed one vote each, so does a vote against count as that vote? Perhaps each Researcher should be allowed a vote for and a vote against. Or perhaps I read something wrong .

-Spike A.

Oh, we're still paying attention. And I feel that the Scheme is still alive ... it's just hibernating I guess. I or one am fairly busy with this silly thing called "RL", ATM.

Tube
ADT
glad that he does not have to rule on the latest bans/suspensions

Wake-up call: A694118
(Thanks Rob! )