On 9 December 2014 at 09:37, Jim Hayes <slowking4(a)gmail.com> wrote:
one take away is how few voters there are.
we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up
should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits,
with a view of block voting in next year's election?
if we organize now, we could run a civility slate of candidates.
Slates are specifically banned from arbcom elections. The majority of
candidates who are running this year (and the past several years, for that
matter) have stated they were very pro-civility. However, I'm not sure that
it makes a difference, since Arbcom decisions and actions have so little
impact on the project as a whole. Aside from actions against individual
editors (i.e., banning or otherwise sanctioning individuals), pretty much
everything else they "decide" has to be implemented by the broader
community, and the committee has no way to leverage these things. Better
than half the time when Arbcom asks the community to review certain things,
it's ignored; discretionary sanctions are entirely based on who is willing
to risk the boomerang effect of reporting someone at the DS noticeboard;
and there is no apparent willingness of the community to proactively
address these issues.
Again, I think you're caught in the trap of believing Arbcom has more power
and authority than it really has.
Risker/Anne