Alec Conroy wrote:
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you
imagine the damage that
would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward
that members that were up for election were involved in this and their
involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
SUPPOSEDLY, if I understand the shape of things , that's not a
scenario you have to worry about.
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.
Again, that's not coming from me. I don't
have the full list names or
the emails, and I won't be the one doing any revealing. Despite my
verbosity, I'm really not that involved in this dispute-- I've been
playing catch up from the start, and I'm always the last person to
hear about these things.
Who's it coming from, then? I'm willing to follow the chain of inquiry
the hard way, but I feel it should be done in a public and verifiable
manner otherwise it's pointless.