On 23 April 2012 18:56, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 April 2012 17:50, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I am very surprised that it would require going through 600 emails to >>> find out how many cases the OC has dealt with over the past year. If >>> they don't have that information somewhere, then they can't have been >>> doing a good job. There is no way they can do their job properly >>> without knowing what cases they've received... >> >> I don't think your correlation is correct. Simply because they have not >> maintained a list of case dispositions (not required or expected to this >> point, and more particularly very difficult to do when there's no >> confidential place for them to retain it) does not mean that they have >> failed to do the job properly. > > How can you make sure you don't forget any cases if you don't keep a > record of them?
I'm confused. It's trivially obvious that you can keep a record of what you're working on at a given time without keeping a centralised overview record based on time periods. In what way is this not clear? In my experience, the Ombudsmen do excellent work, but I think some (additional) community reporting is probably a good thing. To echo the suggestion ^^^^ up-thread, why don't we take this to meta for discussion about what we want to see from them (and what's reasonable, of course!)? J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l