User talk:HJ Mitchell/ACE2013

AGK[edit]

Hi HJ. Thank you for your evaluation. Have you been following my time on the committee closely? It seems like you might have looked at a few isolated moments from my term and used those to "fill in the blanks" in deducing I am a faceless, rules-pushing bureaucrat. Most arbitrators look like that some of the time; it comes with the job. If you are at all open to changing your mind on candidates, I implore you to look more closely at my answers to the questions this year, and at my votes in case decisions over the past two years. I do not think they support your evaluation. Regards, AGK [•] 11:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies[edit]

Hi Harry:

Thank you for your kind words. I was surprised to learn that you think I seem "to be becoming increasingly part of the furniture". (I'm not even increasingly well upholstered.) While much of this year has been about firefighting, I still pull my weight and have a clear vision for reform. This is outlined in my election statement. To focus on core functions and perform them better, I believe the committee needs to shed some of its numerous responsibilities. This won't happen overnight, and the transition must be orderly, but the community and the WMF must start sharing some of the load. I expand this here setting out goals, practicalities and timescales. I also discuss in detail the realities of mailing list transparency. If re-elected, I will be the only arbitrator on the committee with: (1) indepth experience of widescale reform, (2) in-depth experience of the complexities of the task and (3) explicit stated reform goals. I have also left a related note on Kurtis' talk page, which may be of interest. Roger Davies ^talk 10:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liked your guide[edit]

One of the smarter voter guides. No, let's go further — the best. I like your format and I like the fact that you humanize even those with whom you do not agree. Bravo. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]