`Question ==  While I decided early on to only ``vote`` for four people (half the open seats, rounding up), I'm considering changing my oppose to a support for you.  My strongest reason to support may also be a reason to oppose.  I was impressed that you started the so-called ``bureaucrat chat`` concerning Riana's RfB (here). I have a vague recollection that you explained your reasoning for it ``somewhere`` (perhaps even just what you said in the intro to the chat), but could you summarise what you were thinking at the time?  To try to help indicate what I'm looking for, my  is similar to how I feel about most cases of entrusting an individual with more responsibility here. (For example, ``thought-full`` in the Shakespearean sense.)  So understanding your thought process would help.  Thank you in advance. -    :I've decided to withdraw from the elections due to new time commitments that have arisen that would prevent me from discharging my duties were I to be appointed to ArbCom. As to why I started a ``bureaucrat chat`` in that case, it was mainly because there had been a strong indication from the community that they wanted the bar to successful RfBs lowered. I thought that in the circumstances a promotion at the lower end of bureaucrat discretion might well be warranted, however I chose to consult with other bureaucrats rather than make the promotion myself due to the fact that the poll that indicated support for lowering standards had begun after the RfB in question and several opinions contained the qualification that the rules should not be changed for ongoing RfBs. I also thought there might be differing views as to the strength of the opposition and thought consultation appropriate in the circumstances. Ultimately, the majority of other bureaucrats disagreed with me but I thought it important that a view held by a sizable proportion of the community was put and argued in public.     == `