Kelly Martin wrote:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis. They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of individual Wikipedians. It would not surprise me to hear that in those heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to whether their own statements are defamatory.
As someone who occasionally sorts through the Foundation's email, a lot of that deals with the private issues of individuals (Wikipedians or otherwise).
I suspect the real solution to this is for there to be two lists, one for debating policy (noisy, public) and one for dealing with real problems (private). Danny can use the second list to feed action items from the Foundation to responsible administrators to deal with them in a responsible and discreet manner.
It looks like he got off on the wrong foot on this. Discretion is not been a prominent criterion for elevation to admin status. A person in Danny's position needs to be able to evaluate the capacity of an individual (who may or may not be an admin) to be discrete. He also needs to be able to decide who is best capable of handling a specific question.
Ec