On the Arbitration Committee talk page, Michael Snow pointed out that there's two unfilled places on the Committee, due to resignations/places not being taken up in the first place, and suggested that elections for these be held.
In my opinion, particularly considering the slow rate of proceedings of late, and that we are now down to seven active arbitrators (two away, one inactive, as well as these two spots), it would be wise to attempt to fill these.
-- ambi
Rebecca Leighton wrote:
In my opinion, particularly considering the slow rate of proceedings of late, and that we are now down to seven active arbitrators (two away, one inactive, as well as these two spots), it would be wise to attempt to fill these.
I support this. Excellent suggestion. To review the original appointments:
C - Gutza C - MyRedDice C - NoHat C - Epopt B - Fred Bauder B - Delirium B - Maveric149 B - Camembert A - Jdforrester A - Kat/UninvitedCompany (NOW VACANT) A - Cunctator A - Erik Moeller (NOW VACANT)
Those in group A are up for election this December.
Kat/UnivitedCompany and Erik Moeller were slotted for group A, and since their resignations, those two slots are available. Those terms are slated to have re-elections in December.
So I propose that we have elections now for the two vacant seats. The terms will be from now until December. This gives 2 new people the chance to try the job out and see if they like it, and also gives the community a chance to see if they handle cases well.
Then in December we'll have regular elections for all 4 seats.
Since we now have the nifty election thingy, we should use that. The top two vote getters in an approval voting process will win. In the event of a tie, the top three will all serve.
There's no reason to delay on this, so let's set the elections up ASAP, and have them end 1 week from today. That is, the 30th at midnight.
I may have sketchy net access for a few days, so Angela or Anthere should be consulted regarding any further questions. If Danny and Imran would volunteer to run the election, that'd be great, but otherwise someone else can do it.
Since I'm saying all this on a Friday afternoon, I understand things might not get done right away of course. I don't think it matters much because just 2-3 days of voting is sufficient for this if it comes down to that.
My feeling is that the community is generally in the mood to elect some "hanging judges". But I might be wrong. Anyhow, in any candidate statements, I would recommend outlining a general view on how strict we should be, how aggressive about bans.
--Jimbo
Sorry, but this is not the right mailing list.
Anthere (feeling in a day where things should be just at their right place)
Rebecca Leighton wrote:
On the Arbitration Committee talk page, Michael Snow pointed out that there's two unfilled places on the Committee, due to resignations/places not being taken up in the first place, and suggested that elections for these be held.
In my opinion, particularly considering the slow rate of proceedings of late, and that we are now down to seven active arbitrators (two away, one inactive, as well as these two spots), it would be wise to attempt to fill these.
-- ambi
Anthere wrote:
[about the arbitration committee]
Sorry, but this is not the right mailing list.
It would have been nice if you had pointed out what mailing list would have been the correct one. I don't know (wikien-l perhaps?), so it is possible that Rebecca doesn't know either.
Timwi
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:58:58 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
[about the arbitration committee]
Sorry, but this is not the right mailing list.
It would have been nice if you had pointed out what mailing list would have been the correct one. I don't know (wikien-l perhaps?), so it is possible that Rebecca doesn't know either.
Wikien-l (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l) is for non-technical issues relating only to the English Wikipedia. (Technical matters would go to wikitech-l.)
This list (Wikipedia-l) is for issues concerning more than one Wikipedia, but not concerning the sister-projects. (Cross-project discussions can go to foundation-l).
The Arbitration Committee exists only on the English Wikipedia, so you'd discuss that on wikien-l.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists.
Hope that helps.
Angela.
Timwi wrote:
Anthere wrote:
[about the arbitration committee]
Sorry, but this is not the right mailing list.
It would have been nice if you had pointed out what mailing list would have been the correct one. I don't know (wikien-l perhaps?), so it is possible that Rebecca doesn't know either.
Timwi
Believe it or not, I did it. I changed the headings of the gmane message to forward the mail to wikien.
I made a forward to, instead of a reply to, and put in the forward, the en list adress.
Conclusion is : it did not work.
Ah ! Technnique ! I go try to make another attempt.
Anthere wrote:
Believe it or not, I did it. I changed the headings of the gmane message to forward the mail to wikien.
Oh, you mean a Followup-To header? Yeah, I've tried setting one of those before to redirect a thread to a different list, and I got a weird error message. I think I'll contact Gmane about it.
Thanks for reminding me.
Timwi
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org