-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
Disscussion of changes to election procedures were
held at
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Proposed
modifications to rules]]. In the spirit of slow change those were
started in august.
Curious. I was under the impression that those were essentially a joke.
The last time I looked, not one of the proposals wasn't (a) already
discussed at length and, by consensus, dismissed, and (b) made in any
sort of constructive way - most of them were proposed changes on what
the Committee was, rather than how to help it do its job effectively,
and there was no differentiation between changes to the voting system
and changes to the system being voted upon.
I do note, looking at it now, that on both these points the discussions
seem to have improved to an extent, but it's disheartening in the
extreme to see that no-one has attempted to refactor the page for
usefulness (for example, proposals 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11, at the very
least, seem to have been rejected by most participants, yet they remain
on the page, just the same as all the others).
We've been doing this for two whole years now. Couldn't some of the
people who - despite **not a single change or new statement made in the
past month** have all of a sudden started protesting (and, I must point
out, entirely justifiably) - have actually tried to start a real
discussion, instead of a point-by-point aimless hybrid nothingness of a
set of discussions randomly and uselessly lumped together.
Yours,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org
IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDjQ8Ekn3kUxZyJx0RAjy2AJ9BB6HAmfZNPGeyU8DsulUS+42uAACeNz8J
Cr12CSefzWAoq9u7m+Z1mMQ=
=9Skp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----