On 10/14/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <thatcher131(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/14/07, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
I made one suggestion, which might not be
particularly workable.
Regardless, we need to find solutions.
Fred
I had an idea a while ago, I don't remember if I ever presented it before.
Why not have cases heard before a panel of 5 Arbitrators, randomly
chosen from the list of Arbitrators active when the case was accepted?
Cases that are voted out 5-0 or 4-1 would close as is; cases where
the votes were 3-2 or less would be heard before the entire committee.
That way, Arbitrators do not have to hear every case, and might not
burn out as quickly. (A vote of 5-0 is all most cases get by the Fall
of the year anyway.)
It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than the current model, actually,
since there's no provision for the scenario where none of the five
randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work. In a system
where the full Committee hears every case, a few active members can keep
things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't
actively participating.
(Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any* five
active arbs, but, in the new model, we would select five arbs first and then
expect them to be active -- which is a rather dangerous assumption to make.)
Kirill