On 10/10/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
geni wrote
More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
Past experence suggests no after the first month.
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?
Stressful and time-consuming; that's one of the reasons almost half the members are currently inactive.
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.