uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
There is no reason why the AC cannot assign a single arbiter to review a particular case and deal with it. Draw straws, take turns, ask for volunteers -- it doesn't matter. Most cases are clear. In tough cases involving established contributors it may make sense to involve the other arbiters, informally or formally.
There is a very good reason why the Arbitration Committee cannot randomly or otherwise assign a single arbiter for each case. It is that quite a few of the current arbitrators are not at all active participants in the process. Assigning cases to arbitrators who don't deal with the case is sending them to even more of a black hole than the current system.
As Fred Bauder put it: "It is not what you propose or what you vote for that holds things up but failure to either propose or vote." I have posted a summary about the level of participation (or lack thereof) in arbitration cases at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee Based on this, I believe that five of the current arbitrators need to be replaced.
It has been noted that we will soon have another arbitrator election. We need to start preparing and planning for this - I think it would be best to hold the election during the first half of December, rather than waiting until the second half when many people will be preoccupied with holidays and vacations. If so, we should probably publicize it very soon so that people can consider whether to run and declare their candidacies.
Our two recently elected arbitrators seem to have taken their responsibility to their "constituency" seriously and proven to be quite active participants in the arbitration process. I strongly encourage those arbitrators whose terms expire at the end of the year to stand for re-election. In addition, I think we need to open the election to include the positions of the five arbitrators I mentioned.
--Michael Snow