David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at > least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory > capture.
Surreptitiousness <[email protected]> wrote: > You can't? Is this why nothing ever changes? People are too scared too > propose anything radical? Hey, how about two randomly selected editors > assigned to each case? You could build a pool of interested parties. > Maybe former members would consider standing on this basis? Who knows... Hm. Does our dear Arbcom still think that the thread around its leg is a chain? At some point in the near future it might be a good time to collectively conjure up ideas about what a more ideal "Arbcom" will look like. We all think we know what works and what doesn't, so the basic premise is simply relevant experience - in which we are all sufficiently qualified. The questions are simple: 1) What should it do, and 2) how should it work? -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
