--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
You should have a real appeal, not a fig leaf. If
Jimbo is too busy
then someone else, or a small group, should consider
appeals. I think
we made good findings regarding an isolated set of
incidents, but
those incidents do not define your whole body of
work as an
administrator nor do they purport to.
Fred
I understand and I'm considering making one,
but the RFA process (as the Arbcom directed) is
continuing --despite the apparent problems of using a
70 percent threshold nomination scheme for a
referendum vote, in a case that (as Mindspillage let
spill out) was "deadlocked" --is continuing. (Indeed
the different uses--promotion and demotion--suggest
very different ways of reading the votes.)
But as Ive said, it should be regarded as a total
failure of the Arbcom to make a proper case--not
merely a failure with respect to its remedy. I dont
have access to private Arbcom discussions, and the
Arbcom has chosen to be rather tight-lipped about its
own internal "deadlock" re. the case. In addition, as
Ive said many times now, the Arbcom appears to have
assumped a rather tight-lipped posture even during the
period in which the case was heard. Hence its overall
level of responsiveness--before, during, and after the
case--appears to be substandard for an "open" project
that likes to claim to be fully in the public view.
I appreciate your distinction between using the case
as a referendum on my conduct, from using it as a
referendum on my character. But in fact that's what it
was, and thats indeed what the "remedy" appears
designed to be--looking at votes which refer directly
to the fresh and lacking-in-explanatory-detail RFAR
FOF. I would suggest that the Arbcom take it upon
itself to review its own "remedy" and make appropriate
changes to it in light of recent criticism, rather
than obliquely defer to the esteemed Founder, who no
doubt has better things to do.
Sincerely,
SV
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com