Rebecca wrote:
In this circumstances, why don't we have a means for replacing arbitrators?
This is entirely possible. I doubt if we need a formal mechanism for this, I can just do it if there seems to be reasonable consensus that it makes sense.
There's absolutely no reason why said arbitrator should be allowed to continue serving - he wasn't elected, he's done basically nothing in months, and he's been approached about the matter several times, with, as far as I can see, no response. While we've just had elections, now seems to me to be the perfect time to do something - there's a couple of people who only missed out by one or two votes who would be quite capable replacements.
I agree with this completely. Will you research for me which arbs have been least active, and I'll email to ask them about their plans for the future, and then make some decisions. There's no indignity in people stepping down because they won't have time to deal with it.
The workload of arbitration can be daunting, and when some arbitrators don't have time, the others have to take up the slack. So it makes sense for the committee to be filled with active members.
--Jimbo