On Dec 16, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
bbatsell wrote:
There has been no substantive change in response to these concerns by the Arbitration Committee.
Actually, the fact that all the arbitrators were voting unanimously until the shitstorm at the talk page, and then proceeded to not closefor a number of days, shows a remarkable change in typical response to the concerns of the community who stopped by the page. If they could have been clearer regarding what specific evidence they used to come to the conclusion, perhaps that's something they should address in the future.
We're not privy to a lot of the discussion they have on their mailing list, but I have no doubts in my mind that they discussed this quite a bit. Thus the extra motions, thus the extra time for deliberation. Even if the result did not come in a way I favored, I wouldn't be able to criticize them for lack of consideration, and I don't think that's fair.
If anything, I hope the 5 new folks who'll come on board show the same care.
I certainly didn't intend to intimate that there wasn't substantive discussion amongst ArbCom members (as I have noted on the talk page). My problem is with the lack of communication with and explanation to the general public. The findings of fact do not support the proposed remedies, and no communication or substantive changes have been made in response to that.