Anonymous user
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests (edit)
Revision as of 15:21, 5 July 2013
, 10 years ago→Something else
imported>Pidgeoraptor7 |
imported>LostInRiverview |
||
Line 238:
I feel this is worth some kind of discussion. {{LabSig}} 14:14, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
:Eh.. I like the idea of a timeout period, but even having that could still prevent another user from nominating themself or another user. I mean, if we have a 1-week deadline, and that user does not respond even within that one week, other users who were willing to nominate wouldn't get the chance to for at least the week that the user did not respond to the other nomination... maybe we should think about having multiple, but maybe no more than 2 or 3 at a time...? but even that could be a hassle to deal with. {{PGRSig}} 14:25, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
::The way I had been thinking, and the way I ultimately edited the RfA page to say, is that multiple 'pending requests' can be there at the same time, awaiting a response from the nominee. If an applicant wanted to apply in the meantime, they could still do so and their application would be taken first. In other words, we take the RfA (or RfB) applications in order of when the application/nomination was "ready" to be discussed.
::That would also allow us to form a queue of RfA applicants/nominees if multiple people wanted to apply or be nominated at around the same time. The list would be first-come first-served, based on the order in which the applications or nominations were "ready" to be discussed. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 15:21, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
| |||