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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
