Subject: Thanks for the clarification.
Author:
Posted on: 2015-01-27 15:39:00 UTC
That puts her at 9/9, with four possible Yeses on top of that.
And... eh, might as well throw this up here. How would you feel about the creation of a 'deactivated PG' status? I'm thinking it would apply to those PGs who were created long enough ago that they wouldn't be at all familiar with the current Permission setup (so... oh, anyone who left before 2008, say?), though probably excluding the original three, since they were directly created by J&A. It would mean that, in order to start giving Permission again, they'd need to be active in the community for a certain time period - I'm thinking three months, though I've also considered making it 1 or 6.
In the event that Kaitlyn's score doesn't move away from evens (by which I mean, more than +/- 1 either way), I'd suggest making her an immediate deactivated PG, since a fair few of the 'No's have been based not on lack of trust in her judgement, but on the simply fact that she's not currently active. And, bear in mind, eight people who aren't me have said she should get a hat; there is a significant viewpoint that it's appropriate.
(And, y'know, for the record, I'd be totally fine with making AW, Hellga, and Kips PGs. ^_~)
hS