On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other side, I would note
> that being a member of en.wp's ArbCom is highly stressful position and
> I don't think that there are many of long-term ArbCom members (in
> comparison to, let's say, WMF Board). I am sure that one of the most
> important reasons are negative votes, exactly. You can't do good job
> if you want to be reelected.
Newyorkbrad managed to serve for _eight years_, and most people seem
to think he did a good job. It is true that most arbitrators don't
serve for very long, but this is mainly because they either resign
or choose not to run again. The standard reasons are "it's too
stressful" or "I'm too busy".
From what I remember, the usual panic around election time is that
there won't be enough candidates (of course, there always are).
There were elections for CheckUser and Oversight for a couple years,
but ArbCom went back to just appointing people after there was an
election in which only one person passed the vote threshold. CU/OS is
more comparable to stewardship than to ArbCom, though.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: