This issue was raised on the pages for the 2008 election of the Arbitrators
Committee,
and while I haven't been involved in that discussion I think its important
to get a wide
array of eyeballs on this particular question: Should the term of election
for the
Arbitration Committee be reduced to two years, from three, with annual
elections?
I think a one year term, and certainly anything shorter than that, risks
destroying
institutional memory and over-politicizing the arbitration process. Three
years was
obviously devised to insulate the Committee members from the intermittent
changes
in the will and makeup of the community, and also to ensure that the
committee had
a long institutional memory with regards to ongoing issues and past
decisions.
What I think is clear to most people is that a position on the Committee is
a difficult
and trying role. They are the last resort for disputes that have become
bitter enough
or severe enough that other community-based processes are unable to provide
a
solution. Every decision further embitters some, and some decisions leave
absolutely
everyone cold. The point is that being an arbitrator is a tough job, and it
is mostly
unacknowledged and unrewarded. We have all seen arbitrators become bitter
about
the process and its cases, we've all seen activity die off in formerly
heavily involved
arbitrators. Arbitrators have resigned early in dismay (including again,
just today),
and others who manage to complete a term essentially disappear from
Wikipedia.
On the ArbCom RfC and the election page, three current arbitrators and one
former
arbitrator have expressed support for reducing the term of election for
arbitrators
to 2 years. In a separate section on the RfC, 25 editors (including a number
of
admins) also endorsed the idea of removing the third year from the term.
Its unclear who would need to take the lead in making this change, so I hope
that
Jimmy particularly is willing to weigh in on this question.
thank you,
Nathan