[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[bbatsell]

On Dec 16, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:

> bbatsell wrote:
>
>>  There has
>> been no substantive change in response to these concerns by the
>> Arbitration Committee.
>
> Actually, the fact that all the arbitrators were voting unanimously
> until the shitstorm at the talk page, and then proceeded to not  
> closefor
> a number of days, shows a remarkable change in typical response to the
> concerns of the community who stopped by the page.  If they could have
> been clearer regarding what specific evidence they used to come to the
> conclusion, perhaps that's something they should address in the  
> future.
>
> We're not privy to a lot of the discussion they have on their mailing
> list, but I have no doubts in my mind that they discussed this quite a
> bit.  Thus the extra motions, thus the extra time for deliberation.
> Even if the result did not come in a way I favored, I wouldn't be able
> to criticize them for lack of consideration, and I don't think  
> that's fair.
>
> If anything, I hope the 5 new folks who'll come on board show the  
> same care.

I certainly didn't intend to intimate that there wasn't substantive  
discussion amongst ArbCom members (as I have noted on the talk  
page).  My problem is with the lack of communication with and  
explanation to the general public.  The findings of fact do not  
support the proposed remedies, and no communication or substantive  
changes have been made in response to that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061216/e5ff93e3/attachment.pgp