In this circumstances, why don't we have a means for replacing arbitrators? 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.
-- ambi
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:43:40 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Right, it isn't doing things poorly that is the problem, but doing nothing at all, but still filling the slot. So we wait and wait for someone who will neither propose anything nor vote for or against others proposals.
Fred
From: Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:04:13 -0800 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
I think there is an obvious problem when an arbitrator who has not really been active in the process at all still has two years left to serve, and based on the past year there is no reason to seriously expect this arbitrator to begin participating. No experience is being gained by anyone that way.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l