My feeling is that we should require at least 5 arbitrators to accept
a case and those who accepted the case would be responsible for
deciding it.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Carbonite wrote:
I agree with Tony that it would be difficult to
sustain a very
large number
of arbitrators. However, if we had an efficient system for replacing
arbitrators, I could see maintaining a "steady state" of 25-35.
Replacements
could be appointed by Jimbo, be elected as alternates during the
regular
ArbCom elections or we could utilize a system like the one
suggested by
Dragons's Flight.
In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7
arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only
handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to
examine
the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the
burnout
that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case.
Carbonite
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l