[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee elections, 2005 - still no information!

[geni]

On 11/28/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's been one month since Jimbo Wales edited the Arbitration Committee
> elections page for this December (now just a few days away) to change
> the procedure, adding some brainstormed thoughts. Those thoughts are
> still all the information we have on the procedure, and we're almost in
> December.
>
> A number of potential candidates have said they don't wish to put their
> name forwards if they don't know the election procedure, yet recently a
> member of the current Arbitration Committee said that all Wikipedians
> wishing to become arbitrators should put their name forwards immediately.
>
> This is really a terrible state of affairs for a number of reasons:
>
> Firstly, we have no idea how the new Arbitration Committee is going to
> become the new Arbitration Committee at all. Not even the current
> arbitrators say they know how it's going to be done.
>
> Secondly, it has been almost a year since the last elections, and there
> has been plenty of community discussion about what was good and bad
> about the procedure, and action has been taken on this by the community
> (for example, the deletion of the endorsements/disendorsements page).
>
> Thirdly, Jimbo has been deathly quiet. These are probably the most
> important positions in the Wikipedia community and the process deserves
> to be discussed openly. Yet all we've seen are some brief thoughts from
> Jimbo. He hasn't responded to other suggestions or to criticism of his
> thinking.
>
> Come on Jimbo, sort it out! It's been almost a year since the last
> elections, there has been plenty of discussion from the community
> (including the current arbitrators) on reform of the system, but all
> we've heard from you is a "current line of thinking". Yes, we know you
> have other things to do, such as the incredibly important role of
> getting funding. However, the encyclopaedia project relies on its
> community to exist and we have to get this right. Please join in the
> discussion and make your thoughts clear.
>
> Chris

Hmm technicaly the above could be summerised as "Jimbo Wales is
dissrupting the opertation of wikipedia".

Other than the need for a friendly developer is there a reason why we
could not in theory ignore jimbo and elect arbcom whatever?


--
geni