-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
Ec
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
Michael Snow wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
--Michael Snow
I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)
Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said, this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.
Ryan