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