On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, isaac wrote: > bullshit! you've previously advocated giving priv=3 to anyone who > volunteers: > > "ya. if someone wants to approve articles, they should be able to." you may be taking it in the wrong context.. if someone wants to approve articles, yes, they should be able to have the chance. i guess i should've added that in there in whatever email you're quoting :) is that clearer? > you seem to have big problems with any mention of "qualifications/reference > checks", etc. in reality, what would happen is that 95% of people would ognise madhu's name (for example) alone and vote him in. but if he throws > onto his nomination a sentence that says "i've written some articles and > been on thelist for 6-12 months", anyone who doesn't recognise the name can > know that he's not full of shit. because he shouldn't have to say something like that. it equates to proving ones worth, which he's already done(this is an example madhu, sorry you're name is getting used :) in the way of volunteerism. its the principal of the thing i guess. my prob with it before was that people were sending their qualifications off to a group of people they didn't know and a group of people who could sit in the comfort of thier private list and judge these people. i don't like judgements. but if we have to do them, they should be in *public* forums, not private ones. .djc.