The real point of longer terms is to prevent concentration on a single issue--and thus greater fairness overall. Burt I agree that 3 years is probably unrealistic, and wonder if there is perhaps community consensus for a compromise of two years to see if things get improved.
I would also urge the existing arbitrators to work on the pending cases, not on the meta-discussion of them.
On 10/16/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I disagree with the whole logic that has been invoked. As far as I can see, pacing yourself as an Arb as if you have a long stretch ahead is the way to do six or nine months useful work. Which is about the most people can take, on average.
Charles
I think the point of this conversation (or one of the points) is to figure out how to avoid having only a handful of active Arbitrators each year when October rolls around. One way would be to allow Arbitrators to declare a long break (without fear of criticism) and have Jimbo appoint a temp fill-in.
Thatcher
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l