Bringing accountability to the committee

[flip]

The few things I see wrong with this...

1) By making it all transparent you will give informants a reason not to come forward. You can edit out the names all you want but the accused can simply deduce who it is by reading the info. You can retract some of this info but then you will have people (sorry Myers but you're an excellent example here) like Myers who will go on and on about a topic that has been brought forth because they can not see ALL the information. So what is the point to transparency? You either give the community too much info or not enough to make it worth doing. lol Pointless IMO

2) If you make committee elections happen more frequently then needed, forcing new people in then you will soon have the same people right back in because the community isn't that active. So what is the point to that? You will just be taking people out of the loop for awhile and then spend the time to get them back into the scene. Let's face it. There are so many topics that take so long to hash out that switching the committee members out will just be a hindrance.

3) If you allow the community to select the people in hopes that they will be satisfied with who is in the committee then you will always have a group who doesn't trust the other. Rick hit this on the head. It will be a popularity contest. You will have people that join the committee and exploit it just like there is now. So why make it easier for them to do so?

All of this is good that you are being proactive but why not take this energy and apply it to something like rehashing ban lengths and setting a simple standard to be followed by this current committee and the ones after it? Before you start trying to change everything why not work towards a simpler goal and go from there?

[Olbaid]

Get rid of the committee - it's a joke and always has been.

[jitspoe]

Committee elections should be held regularly.

Disagree - I'd rather have one group of people that's proven trustworthy stick around for a long period of time.  It takes a while for new members to get up to speed, and there's always the potential that new people will start causing issues with the information available.  Plus committee elections are just one more thing that takes away from actual development time.

Voting on committee elections should be open to all members of the community, not just the existing committee.

This basically becomes a popularity contest, though I suppose that could be argued for the current system for voting on committee members.

Existing committee members should have to be re-elected.

Disagree - if a committee member isn't doing his job effectively, he should be replaced.  If he is, why should he be potentially replaced?  I think it's better to keep people with experience.

New committee members should get on the ballot by being nominated by someone else, not by application.

Not sure it makes much of a difference.  It keeps out the people who don't have a single supporter, but those people wouldn't get voted for anyway.

Threads in the committee forum that are "Resolved" should be posted publicly in some way (with sensitive information redacted) so that the electorate can hold their committee members responsible.

Disagree - that would require way too much work stripping out personal contact information, chat logs that people don't want shared, etc., and if that information is removed, it wouldn't be available for reference later.  I'm not sure what benefit sharing this information would have, either.

Committee members should be given ops (or at least hops) in #paintball so somebody's around to kick the spammers/etc.

That can be arranged, but have there been many spammers, etc. in the channel recently?