FT2 wrote:
A quick way to fill a gap of <n> arbitrators, might be to ask the <n+2> runners-up at the last Arbcom election whether they'd be willing to serve, then present these names publicly and ask if there is any new and substantive objection to any of them, within the community.
The rationale being (if 2006 is anything to go by) that Arbcom runners-up are editors who have already fairly recently (within the last year) gained around 80-85% approval by the community for the job, so their communal support for the role is fairly likely - we probably don't need to retest this. The main question to ask is whether any strong reason * not * to appoint them has emerged since that time.
That could be a lot quicker and simpler than another election, if Arbcom needs topping up during the year.
</thought>
FT2
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom
The normal time period for ArbCom elections is December. Perhaps it would be sensible to accelerate that a bit, or to have a quick snap election to expand/fill idle seats.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, I really like that idea, and perhaps at the next election it could be expanded, to where the runners-up who receive a reasonable amount of support are selected as reserve arbitrators who can be asked to fill in for those who resign, go inactive, or just need a break. An objection process could easily enough be set up, perhaps allowing those with an objection to file it during the first week or two after the reserve arbitrator is asked to fill an active role, and if substantial enough objection is raised someone else could be asked to fill in instead. Except in the case of complete resignation, the main arbitrator can then return to his/her role when ready, and the substitute put back on reserve.
It's also possible that some of those selected as reserve arbitrators could be set up with checkuser and/or oversight permissions, taking some of the burden for these tasks off of the active arbitrators.