For the benefit of English readers could you avoid the use of "moot" to mean "irrelevant" in future? In English usage it still means what it has always meant, a matter for debate. Tim riley talk 09:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I wrote this up in about 15 minutes and I didn't think that it was going to go out this week, since it was a Friday. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "new initiatives and policies" links "that may make the case moot" are about making WMF employees have to edit under separate accounts for official versus personal edits. Why did this article decide to be vague instead of explicit on that? The problems addressed by the case also seems to be of much larger scope and separate accounts is only a partial solution so I don't see how it makes the case irrelevant. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author (a sitting arb) wrote conservatively rather than address the rather large elephant occupying the WMF home office in San Francisco. I'd've rather read about ARBCOM's reluctance to rebuke WMF staff but we've poured enough gasoline on that fire, already. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that Guerillero is not a current member of the arbitration committee, nor has he ever been (he was a community representative on the Audit Subcommittee until recently). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I was thinking of GorillaWarfare. My mistake. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, this was a quick draft that I wasn't totally happy with. There are several things that I wanted to add that didn't get put in by publication time. Next week's report should be better. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]