geni wrote
More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 10/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
Charles
Past experence suggests no after the first month.
On 10/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
Past experence suggests no after the first month.
Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging through the worst stupidity on the wiki (one or both participants), writing up something that would pass sanity check (wouldn't make anyone looking at it cough up a hairball) and dealing with flak from all sides. It's a job custom-made for burnout.
And the people you see in AC elections who give you the first thought "OH GOD NO" and make you vote for *anyone* else.
And we're about to become a top 10 website. w00t!
Committees don't scale too well in general on the wiki.
Hey, AC. How's it been going this year?
- d.
On 10/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
Past experence suggests no after the first month.
Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging through the worst stupidity on the wiki (one or both participants), writing up something that would pass sanity check (wouldn't make anyone looking at it cough up a hairball) and dealing with flak from all sides. It's a job custom-made for burnout.
And the people you see in AC elections who give you the first thought "OH GOD NO" and make you vote for *anyone* else.
And we're about to become a top 10 website. w00t!
Committees don't scale too well in general on the wiki.
Hey, AC. How's it been going this year?
Stressful and time-consuming; that's one of the reasons almost half the members are currently inactive.
Jay.
On 10/10/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
Past experence suggests no after the first month.
Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging through the worst stupidity on the wiki (one or both participants), writing up something that would pass sanity check (wouldn't make anyone looking at it cough up a hairball) and dealing with flak from all sides. It's a job custom-made for burnout.
And the people you see in AC elections who give you the first thought "OH GOD NO" and make you vote for *anyone* else.
And we're about to become a top 10 website. w00t!
Committees don't scale too well in general on the wiki.
Hey, AC. How's it been going this year?
Stressful and time-consuming; that's one of the reasons almost half the members are currently inactive.
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can you remind us how active/inactive membership is counted, and what the effects on a voting plurality are depending on how many people are actually responsive out of the total?
How bad is it for moving forwards if arbcom members are functionally inactive? Is it then just an issue of bandwidth, or do you have to spur some of the inactive ones to participate to get proposed decisions voted out and official?
Thanks.
On 11/10/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
How bad is it for moving forwards if arbcom members are functionally inactive? Is it then just an issue of bandwidth, or do you have to spur some of the inactive ones to participate to get proposed decisions voted out and official?
I always found the hardest bit was pushing myself to spend several hours a week on a deeply unpleasant and complex job requiring the best thinking I could manage. I always felt I wasn't doing enough, and am somewhat amazed anyone manages it at all. Fred is unstoppable, but he used to be a lawyer so did stuff well above this level of complexity daily for a living. Future AC members with combat lawyer experience, please run!
- d.
On 10/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging
Why do people want to be on it? I couldn't imagine anything remotely rewarding about it: as you say, reading lots of stupidity, attempting to write non-stupidity, and being criticised anyway. And if you get complimented, you'll be second guessing yourself and wondering if you were too nice to one side.
At least judges get paid, for god's sake.
Steve
On 13/10/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging
Why do people want to be on it? I couldn't imagine anything remotely rewarding about it: as you say, reading lots of stupidity, attempting to write non-stupidity, and being criticised anyway. And if you get complimented, you'll be second guessing yourself and wondering if you were too nice to one side. At least judges get paid, for god's sake.
Quite a lot get drafted into nominating because others think they'd do well. First time I ran (mid-2005), it was because someone said "X is running, fergoshsakes please run so they don't get in." In Soviet Wikipedia, job finds YOU.
- d.
On 10/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/10/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of people want to be on the arbcom, but the job *sucks*: dredging
Why do people want to be on it? I couldn't imagine anything remotely rewarding about it: as you say, reading lots of stupidity, attempting to write non-stupidity, and being criticised anyway. And if you get complimented, you'll be second guessing yourself and wondering if you were too nice to one side. At least judges get paid, for god's sake.
Quite a lot get drafted into nominating because others think they'd do well. First time I ran (mid-2005), it was because someone said "X is running, fergoshsakes please run so they don't get in." In Soviet Wikipedia, job finds YOU.
- d.
In passing...
Thanks, to you and all the other current and former Arbcom people.
I don't think that gets said often enough.