At 01:21 26/02/2004 -0800, Ec wrote:
Well, I can't say how long it will take, because I simply don't know, but I sorely hope it will indeed be days rather than weeks. If we're not in a position to decide on hearing cases directly (ie, not through Jimbo) by this time next week then I'll be disappointed.
The problem is that we're all volunteers, and we have other committments. I've been very pressed for time recently and so unable to take part in the discussion much, so it's not really fair for me to criticise the slowness of the process. I honestly believe that the arbitrators as a whole are going as fast as they can.
I can't understand why accusers are so impatient about getting results from the arbitration committee. One week would not be unduly long. Impatence should perhaps be taken as evidence that diminishes the impatient person's case. Impatience puts unfair pressure on volunteer arbitrators.
Yes, but to be fair to our critics, they're not actually complaining about the length of time it takes to decide on a case once we accept it (which, as you say, is no more than a week). They're complaining about the fact that it takes us so long to accept the case in the first place. We're still not in a position to hear cases directly - we have to wait for Jimbo to refer them to us. The critics are seeing this as causing an unnecessary slow-down.
Of course, carefulness in making these decisions is no bad thing, and to be careful you have to be slow to some degree. But the problem isn't exactly that we're slow in making decisions as such; it's more that we're currently slow in deciding whether to consider making a decision or not (does that make sense?).
This is why I'm hoping we can complete our guidelines (or "policy" if you like) in some form in the next few days so we don't have to rely on Jimbo to refer cases to us. We can always refine the guidelines and our ways of working as we learn from experience and get feedback from other users. Then we can move on to all the other problems...
Lee (Camembert)