Thread:Brandon Rhea/@comment-1878162-20130202053555/@comment-20644-20130205211356

Your reasoning for wanting me to do it makes sense, Rajputistan. If that's what people want, and the current team is comfortable with that, then I can certainly do that.

I also want to point out, so people are aware, that the core idea of consensus doesn't completely mesh with the core idea of a free and fair election. A free and fair election almost always is done based on majority rule; all you need is a simple majority to win. That's the most democratic way of doing it. If you were going to go for a consensus, you'd need to see a larger percentage. 50.1% of the vote wouldn't be enough, for example, because there's only .2% difference between the two sides and therefore doesn't reflect a true consensus of the community. You'd need something more like a 60% or 2/3 majority for a proper consensus.

There are pros and cons to both of these approaches. The quickest and most democratic way is a simple majority vote. If there are 3 admin spots, then the the three candidates with the highest pluraity of votes would win. The trouble is, if there are a lot of candidates, the combined percentage of all three of those candidates could be, say, 40%&mdash;meaning 60% of the community voted for someone else. The consensus route would avoid that, and it would better reflect a more decisive community, but would also be a long and difficult process that would require multiple rounds of voting.

Given that you've all indicated a pressing need for new admins, my suggestion would be to go the more democratic route rather than the consensus route. I can try to make it as indicative of the full community's wishes as possible.