Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.
Best, Kevin Gorman On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: >> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm >> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half >> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of >> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last >> year. > > > Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, although I > rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect the > oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do > the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to > speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion amongst > themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution > process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care who > care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a greater > proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote. > > Daniel Case > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap