User talk:ST47/JuryDuty

[edit] A few comments!

Glad to see someone is taking the bull by the horns! Just a few comments:

"I'm sure you've heard of the attempts to reform RfA" - well, actually, no, if you are doing a random polling of all users, most of them will have never heard of RfA. Seriously! If you are doing a random polling of recent voters on RfAs, then you know they have heard of RfA.
"You were chosen as a random user who was then found to have more than 100 edits and who edited in the past week." - I take this to mean you are scanning through some list you've generated of all active users. Interesting. I still feel this will end up spamming talk pages of people who have little or no interest in RfA, so I'd tread carefully.
The link to the proposal needs to be to something more than what I initially wrote. I appreciate you carrying this forward, but maybe slow down a little until it feels ready? I'm now worried you are going to start this experiment yesterday! :-)
The link to WT:RFA is too general. Direct people to a more specific page, like the talk page of the proposal, and then link to WT:RFA from there.
I'd really strongly urge avoiding references to jury duty. That helps when describing it, but when putting something like this into practice, call it something different. An "advisory committee" Makes this sounds like more than it really is.
Oh, and for a message like this it is best to spell names out in full, rather than use abbreviations like RfA.

Everything else looks fine. Carcharoth 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)