On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
A random panel would essentially attempt to decrease the voting delay (5a) by reducing the number of needed votes, at the cost of increasing the drafting delay (3a) by reducing the chance that an arbitrator would be available to draft a decision (something which, historically, not all arbitrators do a lot of).
You could always have a non-random panel. Allocate arbs to cases based on their areas of expertise (interpersonal disputes, certain types of admin actions, certain policies). This eliminates the problems of a random panel, although it would certainly be less practical and could well concentrate work into a few hands.