On 10/10/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 10/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 10/14/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: In passing... Thanks, to you and all the other current and former Arbcom people. I don't think that gets said often enough. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com