On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Alec Conroy wrote:
Supposedly, the names of everybody involved has
already been revealed
by one or more list participants. Anyone who hasn't come forward
before the start of the election is, supposedly, going to have their
involvement revealed and substantiated with evidence. But of course,
nobody wants it to come to that-- it would be better for the
community (and much less dramatic) if everyone involved comes forward
on their own, so atleast until the election starts, THERE IS NO
DEADLINE.
{{citation needed}}. This is exactly the sort of secretive "behind the
scenes" assurances that appears to have caused this train wreck in the
first place. At this point the only thing I'm willing to accept at face
value is that there's something nasty going on here, because I've read
through plenty enough ANI and RfC material in the past hour or so to
convince me of that much at least.
Most wise. I wouldn't want my assurances to stop you from fully
investigating on your own.
Every candidate for Arbcom has now officially been asked if they were
involved, and the sitting arbiters who were involved have been asked
to step forward and recuse themselves from the ongoing arbitration.
Having been involved is NOT one of the seven deadly sins, but the
community does have a right to know. On the other hand, if anyone
can't be trusted to tell the truth about their involvement, they
definitely can't be trusted to occupy an arbcom seat-- in my opinion.
I actually don't expect we'll have anyone who refuses to level with
the community on this.
Alec