On 8/28/07, Frank Bellowes <fbellowes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
He does not have to explain his absence.
The claimed "absence" is a lie.
--Jimbo
The claimed "absence" is a fact. He hasn't made any edits since August
4th and has made no statement explaining his absence. He disappeared
in conjunction with an RFA case in which he's named as a party.
This behaviour is very irresponsible for a "trusted admin" let alone
one with various entitlements on the project.
It is reasonable to expect a modicum of accountability and
transparency. That the ArbComm is discussing this behind closed doors,
without any sort of mechanism for feedback by users or any sort of
transparency does not enhance the credibility of the project,
particularly at a time when it has come under severe criticism that
has eroded our standing.
I'm not fond of opaqueness, but how is this different from standard
operating procedure? I haven't been an active clerk in ages, but I have
never heard of a change to the policy that hearings and discussions between
parties and arbitrators can be conducted in private, via email. Recall that
even evidence can be submitted by email.
Johnleemk