And besides that, it might make people want to get steward just to get on that arbcom... I thikn these two should certainly not be automaticly merged. Stewards should not "as a steward" become a member, but could get elected, just like every other community member imho.
2008/1/5, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com:
A major disadvantage there is the fact that none of the stewards have been elected because of their skills as potential arbitrators - as far as I can see, these tasks are very different, so a good steward might well be a crappy arbitrator. (But then again, one would of course be willing to arbitrate, and to be willing one should have some - at least perceived - skill, so this problem could solve itself.)
2008/1/5, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com:
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Having a blend might work best. Keep some connection to the local community as well as meta.
Maybe the steward members would be permanent and the ArbCom members would serve as a pool that could be called to work on a particular case.
I think we can think creatively to come up with a formula that best serves the needs of the Foundation and the Community.
Sydney
On Jan 4, 2008 6:08 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Why couldnt the stewards serve as the basis of this meta-arbcom. They were elected, and they represent diverse projects.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l