Alec Conroy wrote:
On 11/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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.