This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.166.206.120(talk) at 22:48, 20 June 2012(respond to first problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:48, 20 June 2012 by 75.166.206.120(talk)(respond to first problem)
First problem: how is it possible for any complex RFC to pass in the current climate? Look at WP:PC/RFC2012, or any of the past RFA-related RFCs. It's difficult to get voters to engage on the issues and talk with each other, rather than just depositing their opinions and leaving, even on relatively simple issues. Anything as complex as an RFC that would theoretically fix RFA issues is sure to fail. See my proposal. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting the voters to a randomly selected pool of people who volunteer to vote on RfAs but who have not personally have had interactions with the candidates would make the process less excruciating. Everyone would still be allowed to comment, but interactions would be judged by those who were not directly involved in them. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
