Tim Starling wrote:
The first and most important measure to improve the
speed of the AC is
to reduce the necessary quorum to three members. Decisions are made by a
simple majority. Any member of the arbitration committee may request a
review of such decisions by the full committee.
The second is that deliberation should be conducted by IRC, not email.
Cases will still be accepted on the wiki, and findings will still be
announced on the wiki. But deliberations will be performed by any and
all AC members present in #arbcom.wikipedia, as long as there is more
than three of them.
Under this proposal, the size of the arbitration committee can expand to
meet the ever-increasing demands placed on them. Preliminary judgements
leading to blocking pending a full review should be possible within
minutes of a request.
I think this would really help. I think I'd like to see it as an option
rather than the only possibility though. The benefit to the users in
question would be a quick decision; the problem would be that it would
be likely to be a less in depth investigation. It would perhaps be a
gamble to some extent, but one that I think many users would take to
speed up the process.
I think there might be ways of adding to this, perhaps with a provision
for an "appeal" - which might involve more arbitrators and be more in
the style of arbitration available now. Although there would also have
to be precautions to ensure this doesn't mean that every decision simply
goes back to the long form.
One thing about this proposal is that a large committee would be helpful
in this case, allowing a pool of arbitrators to be available at various
times.
I'm intending to stand for a position on the arbitration committee this
time round - so would be very interested to read more on this proposal
when it's written.
--sannse