On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
<surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to
create some rules on who
can run. Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce
the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the community would
allow Jimmy to appoint as he sees fit anymore, but if the board mandated
a couple of seats had to be reserved fro picks, that might shake things
up. That would involve the board getting down in the mud though, which
they try not to do.
You can't just throw out a possible new arbcom membership requirement
without considering the effects.
You can't? Is this why nothing ever changes? People are too scared too
propose anything radical? Hey, how about two randomly selected editors
assigned to each case? You could build a pool of interested parties.
Maybe former members would consider standing on this basis? Who knows...