Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
Of course MONGO should have held back, and we, his friends and fellow admins, should have helped him to do that, but I suspect that the decision is not going to be a popular one.
OK, not going to be 'popular'. Do you suggest we look at the evidence, or the buzz?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:21:02 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Of course MONGO should have held back, and we, his friends and fellow admins, should have helped him to do that, but I suspect that the decision is not going to be a popular one.
OK, not going to be 'popular'. Do you suggest we look at the evidence, or the buzz?
I suggest that the context and history also needs to be considered as a mitigating factor.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:21:02 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
OK, not going to be 'popular'. Do you suggest we look at the evidence, or the buzz?
I suggest that the context and history also needs to be considered as a mitigating factor.
See this section with respect to context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Pro...
On 12/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:21:02 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
OK, not going to be 'popular'. Do you suggest we look at the evidence, or
the buzz?
I suggest that the context and history also needs to be considered as a mitigating factor.
See this section with respect to context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/P
roposed_decision#MONGO.27s_habitual_over-reaction
I would encourage anyone interested in this (and everyone else) to review a couple very well thought out reactions to this decision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhca n/Proposed_decision#Comments_on_proposed_decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhca n/Proposed_decision#Unprotection.3F -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 12/11/2006 4:32 PM
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
Of course MONGO should have held back, and we, his friends and fellow admins, should have helped him to do that, but I suspect that the decision is not going to be a popular one.
OK, not going to be 'popular'. Do you suggest we look at the evidence, or the buzz?
The evidence! :) At the same time, and I am sure Charles will agree because we have talked about it... it can be fine for the ArbCom to always be open to new evidence or arguments from trusted community members as a sanity check.
But this is one of the reasons we try to keep the arbcom elections apolitical and why we have the appointment buffer. I think that the last thing any of us want is judges making decisions not based on facts but based on opinion polls. It can be joyful in some cases, but on the whole, it is quite a bad idea.