Fri 17th October 2008, 3:52pm
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th October 2008, 7:40pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Thu 16th October 2008, 10:44am)
Sure they are. Anyone who might actually want to rock the wikiboat would be excluded.
Do you have any evidence to that effect, or is it an as-yet untested hypothesis? Not that there's anything wrong with as-yet untested hypotheses - I express quite a few of them around here - but they should be recognized as what they are.
I was going to present the current arbcom as exhibit A, but I see Shalom has already done that quite nicely. I may be inclined to collect examples of arbs-toeing-the-line here as we go along.
QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 16th October 2008, 8:07pm)
To suggest that the composition of the ArbCom is irrelevant is simply ludicrous--in the context of Wikipolitics, nothing is more important than the composition of the ArbCom. It's only irrelevant if you think Wikipedia itself is irrelevant, and therefore whatever future direction the project takes is inconsequential.
That's assuming the body actually influences the "future direction of the project". It doesn't. It makes relatively inconsistent decisions on the banning-and-reverting - as you say, "wikipolitics" - but does not substantially influence goals and methods.
QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 17th October 2008, 2:15am)
QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 17th October 2008, 2:07am)
Re: Anyone who might rock the wikiboat...
Jimbo said if anyone retired mid-year this year, he would replace them from someone who got at least 50% in the 2007 election. Jimbo didn't keep his word. (Is anyone surprised?) Newyorkbrad retired and UninvitedCompany lapsed into real life, but Jimbo left their seats vacant until NYB returned and UC formally resigned. Anyway, he said anyone who got 50%, and he explicitly included Giano in that list.
Where did he say this?
, for those with short memories. Also of interest in that writeup is the way term lengths and composition of the body are chopped and changed at will.