Re: Reforming the NM process
Steve Langasek wrote:
>I don't think having multiple advocates solves
>anything; if the problem is that you have a large pool of people acting as
>poor advocates, then requiring them to get *two* bad advocates is only
>slightly more challenging than getting one.
This is only papering over the problem of people who should never have become
DDs in the first place, who nevertheless made it through in the early
years.... if DDs are not trusted even to *advocate* others, then you might as
well let anyone be a DD.
However, I do not think there is actually a serious problem with a large pool
of people acting as poor advocates. I've never heard of such a problem.
I have no doubt that I could scrounge up at least two advocates in addition to
my existing advocate, if there were a reason to; I believe several people
would be willing to advocate me based on the work I have done over the past 5
years.
But requiring more advocates has no benefit unless it *replaces* one of the
bottlenecks in the system. Currently the bottlenecks appear to be:
(1) AM assignment
(2) waiting for AM report
(3) waiting for Front Desk action
(4) waiting for DAM
The only way to speed up the system is to remove or drastically change at
least one of these. Personally, I suggest DAM, because it's the least
transparent part of the process, as well as the only one where the people
giving approval may have no knowledge of the NM applicant at all. Plus which
it's the one which has had problems for the longest, the one which has had
the most complaints, and the one with the most overworked people. :-P I'd
trust the Front Desk to create accounts directly.
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: