I feel like "Substantial contributions" only count for you if someone presents proposals which can be implemented right away into the regulations one-on-one (so the only thing the WRC has to do is "click on OK"), and that well justified criticism or making numerous smaller contributions simply go unnoticed and unrewarded. In my opinion these proposal which are one-on-one transferrable are solely the responsibility of the WRC to make. It sounds like you choose him because he just lives up to your specific expectations.
Of course someone gets motivated partially by specific topics who appeal to him/her, how is that a bad thing? It doesn't mean they don't care about anything else, but just got triggered by specific topics. To me this sounds like you were looking for arguments after making a decision.
That is one clear way to make a substantial contribution -- it is usually the easiest way to see that you are helping "get stuff done" (I usually call it a "concrete" contribution).
Another main way is to take a controversial discussion and help make sense of it. Kit has also started threads and made quite a few posts like this.
I do place an emphasis on concrete changes, because the specific details do matter (speaking from experience).
For something as big as puzzle changes, a high-level viewpoint will still take considerable work to turn into Regulations -- subtle phrasing choices can have unintended consequences.
For something small, we do expect a suggestion that is well-articulated enough to be "one-on-one transferrable". I have adopted quite a variety of smaller proposals/suggestions into exact changes, and things go better when the person discussing a change had something exact in mind. The WRC can work a lot better if we don't have to spend time trying to interpret other people's intended changes.
At least two people (including Arnaud) have offered to work on a more detailed proposal, but never got back to me with anything.
I understand people are busy, and it can be discouraging to work on something if you don't know whether it will be adopted -- but the fact is that very little came out of anything, except Sébastien's original proposal.
We/I did choose Kit because he lives up to our expectations, and I don't consider that a bad thing. He does the kind of things that someone on the WRC should do. Smaller contributions are fine (and you certainly don't have to be on the WRC for it), but the WRC needs someone who moves things along.
Kit also spends effort looking at the sides of an issue, and previous comments, before stating his views.
In my experience, he focuses on the details and considerations that really matter (on either side of an issue), which is better to respond to than someone who is bent on advancing their viewpoint.
Everyone argues specific sides sometimes, but if someone is dedicated to one side, a spectator's view of whether that person is making a positive contribution boils down to "is (s)he arguing for the side I agree with?"
Having a motivating viewpoint is fine, but it's helpful insofar as it helps you find objectively good reasons for going with that side.
It's possible to do this while trying to stay neutral, or keep different goals in mind, which Kit does.
(I have personally spent a lot of time on this subforum defending the current Regulations, but a lot of that is from the perspective of the current policy. I've stated my concerns about other policies, and that I think a form of "anything goes" could work -- it mainly takes some work that no one is stepping up to the plate for.)
In short: Kit's contributions are good by any what I believe *should* be part of my "expectations" -- and I believe my expectations are appropriate.
Others have made contributions, but those are not as strong examples of what a WRC member needs to be doing.
(Arnaud's posts have generally been constructive, but I believe Kit is more qualified with regard to the points above.)
That's good to hear. You also have the opportunity to take a large step into solving this, see Arnaud's post and application.
Yeah. I have way too many things to do right now, but I'm looking into Arnaud's application. (I accidentally overlooked it in January, and never really got back to it -- no one else dealt with it.)
Could you let me know who the other person is, to see if it's who I think it is? (Else, I'm probably not aware of them.)
