Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election
had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't
have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
<dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm
>> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half
>> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of
>> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last
>> year.
>
>
> Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, although I
> rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect the
> oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do
> the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to
> speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion amongst
> themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution
> process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care who
> care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a greater
> proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.
>
> Daniel Case
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap