--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
You should have a real appeal, not a fig leaf. If Jimbo is too busy then someone else, or a small group, should consider appeals. I think we made good findings regarding an isolated set of incidents, but those incidents do not define your whole body of work as an administrator nor do they purport to.
Fred
I understand and I'm considering making one, but the RFA process (as the Arbcom directed) is continuing --despite the apparent problems of using a 70 percent threshold nomination scheme for a referendum vote, in a case that (as Mindspillage let spill out) was "deadlocked" --is continuing. (Indeed the different uses--promotion and demotion--suggest very different ways of reading the votes.)
But as Ive said, it should be regarded as a total failure of the Arbcom to make a proper case--not merely a failure with respect to its remedy. I dont have access to private Arbcom discussions, and the Arbcom has chosen to be rather tight-lipped about its own internal "deadlock" re. the case. In addition, as Ive said many times now, the Arbcom appears to have assumped a rather tight-lipped posture even during the period in which the case was heard. Hence its overall level of responsiveness--before, during, and after the case--appears to be substandard for an "open" project that likes to claim to be fully in the public view.
I appreciate your distinction between using the case as a referendum on my conduct, from using it as a referendum on my character. But in fact that's what it was, and thats indeed what the "remedy" appears designed to be--looking at votes which refer directly to the fresh and lacking-in-explanatory-detail RFAR FOF. I would suggest that the Arbcom take it upon itself to review its own "remedy" and make appropriate changes to it in light of recent criticism, rather than obliquely defer to the esteemed Founder, who no doubt has better things to do.
Sincerely, SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com