David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> 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 <surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com> 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