The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing Statement: As UltraExactZZ wrote on a similar RfC last year, "The election of editors to the Arbitration Committee is one of the most important meta tasks we undertake as part of this project. No single process garners more participation, more emotion, or more drama than these elections - so much so that we must relegate them to an annual event." With that, I am making the following evaluation as follows:
Secret vs. open ballots. There is a clear consensus in support of secret ballots. However, there are two qualifications here:
Voting method. Consensus appears to endorse the current SecurePoll method. It's what we are using now, & no one has presented an alternative that has found stronger support.
No last-minute withdrawals. Of the additional considerations for this election, this gathered the most support. However, only slightly more than half of the number that added their support to secret ballots voted for this proposal. But honestly, who wants to elect a quitter to the ArbCom? Since it follows common sense (does anyone want someone who quit partway through the election to be a member of the Arbcom?), those monitoring the election should follow this non-binding suggestion. But this proposal & the two below that I explicitly mention should be discussed & refined further over the following months so that they can properly considered for the next ArbCom election.
Risker's requirements for appointees. This gathered almost as much support as the one about "No last-minute withdrawals", but like it failed to gather anywhere near the support that the secret ballot proposal did. But since this proposal follows common sense also, it is an attractive idea & worth considering as a non-binding suggestion. However, if less than 17 people meet this requirement, & we have 18 seats to fill, this requirement gives Jimmy Wales carte blanche to appoint anyone he wants to this empty seat. Do we want him to appoint someone people voted for, or for anyone else who has an account who strikes his fancy?
None of the above as a choice. No consensus. I'll admit that I like this idea in a general sense (in the US, yesterday was Election Day, need I say more?) but it didn't attract enough support to be adopted. Further, as Sven Manguard & Neutron point out in their opposes & in the thread on the talk page, there is no good way to implement this option: we need as many people as we can get to fill the 18 ArbCom seats, & if everyone votes "None of the Above", the ArbCom will have no members & won't function at all. If you don't like the ArbCom, there are better ways to find something to replace it than through this back door.
Other proposals. These gathered negligible support, perhaps because they were so far down the page. If their proposers seriously think they are a good idea, they need to find ways to get more people interested in considering them before the next ArbCom election.
To summarize, the consensus of this RFC is as follows:
My sincere thanks to all who participated. -- llywrch (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)