@Krd: I think it might have used to make more sense, but as the current situation requires 100% of all bureaucrats to endorse - it is a bit unusual (in fact if one of them were to resign we would not be able to replace them without changing the rules!). I suppose should one of them just "pocket veto" this request, but there is still an otherwise strong showing of community support, I'd use it as an example for an RfC to change that rule. Meta:Bureaucrats and this process sort of falls apart when the population of 'crats is so low (such as trying to find an "uninvoled" crat when the process currently requires involving all of them. — xaosfluxTalk14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The timing mechanisms are a bit off as well, this requires a 24 hour windows for "objections" to run, which appears to need to be concurrent with the wait-for-endorsements process. The wording there is a bit clumsy too, but this is such a rare process that spending time working on it really isn't a priority. In the event I get multiple objections, I'll probably just withdraw. — xaosfluxTalk14:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most straight forward approach would be to discuss endorsement with existing bureaucrats before posting the request. Converting "endorsement required" into "absence of veto" appears not really reasonable to me. Just my 0.02. --Krd16:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
