I totally agree that the arbcom has lost the interest of most of the community and that there used to be more candidates and more voters. I believe this is reflected in a combination of the drop in editors, the drop in admins and in the progressively worse job the arbcom is doing. The take very few cases these days and they always seem to make the worst possible decision that avoids making an actual decision on the issue and leaves both sides losing. 

 

In general, the arbcom has outlived its usefullness and the low votes help reflect that.

 

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

 

 

------ Original message------

From: Risker

Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 11:20 AM

To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;

Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

 

There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom elections; in fact, that's more people than voted in the last Board of Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a "vote" for the chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats. 
 
The fact of the matter is that not that many people actually care about Arbcom, and never really cared. The people who care are usually those who have interacted with the dispute resolution system on multiple occasions.  The majority of active administrators participate, for example; but the number of active admins has also nosedived, so we may be seeing the effects of that reflected in the interest in voting, and even in the number and quality of candidates.  Back in the earlier days, there were often 30-40 candidates. 
 
Risker/Anne

On 9 December 2014 at 11:08, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2014 9:08 AM, Risker wrote:
Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is that there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 30,000.  I think this may reflect a change in the degree of importance the community places on the Arbitration Committee.

 They should say the election isn't valid unless, say, 2000 vote, and keep advertising that fact til 2000 vote.  Far too easily manipulated this way.

We'll see if the two most problematic candidates because of support for anti-GGTF people are elected.


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap