Rebecca wrote:
I don't think mav's idea is a bad one, if a little negative. It's certainly a possibility.
However, we could always just try and convince better candidates...The Committee to Conscript Michael Snow, anyone?
-- ambi
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:30:16 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> wrote:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> wrote:
We need to be careful to not open more postions than there are reasonably well qualified candidates (of whom I count you as one). Some of the candidates in the last election seemed much more suited for the role of defendant than arbitrator.
I agree with this completely. Therefore votes against candidates should also be allowed - only the top candidates with a net positive vote will be elected (5 options would be given, from strongly approve to strongly disapprove). If that means that some seats remain empty, then so be it.
I like mav's idea, but I would take it just a little bit further. Based on the experience of the past year, I think having twelve positions on the Arbitration Committee is more than we need, period. I would like to elaborate on my previous proposal, which I recognize would have put most of the positions up to be filled in this election (and this before I even heard the sad news of Martin Harper's impending resignation). I'm not completely surprised to have heard quite a bit of concern over whether that many qualified candidates exist, although personally I had hopes that opening more positions would encourage more candidates to come forward instead of deferring to those first out of the gate.
To deal with this, I propose that we take advantage of this election to restructure the Arbitration Committee and shrink its numbers to nine positions. I don't think a group as large as twelve is necessary, and there are considerable advantages to be gained from shrinkage, namely:
*Deliberations among arbitrators can reach "quorum" more quickly, which would generally speed things up a bit and address one of the biggest complaints about the process. (The number of votes required to accept or reject cases should be reduced proportionally, to three.) *As 9, unlike 12, is an odd number, the potential for deadlock is avoided - though I anticipate that the arbitrators would work to avoid issuing 5-4 rulings. *Smaller numbers encourage participants to feel greater personal responsibility for successful outcomes. *In addition to the six positions soon to be up for election, this would allow us to relieve Camembert, Delirium, and Nohat of their responsibilities without anyone needing to be concerned over who might replace them. Camembert and Delirium have both already indicated an inclination to resign, and Nohat has shown relatively little interest in arbitration matters.
Because 9 is still divisible by 3, we can retain Jimbo's initial concept of having the arbitrators serve staggered 3-year terms. This would mean that instead of elections for four arbitrators to serve 3-year terms, and two more to fill unexpired terms for 2 years, we would elect three people to 3-year terms and three more to 2-year terms. The three remaining arbitrators appointed by Jimbo would be up for re-election at the end of 2005.
Due to the difference in term length, I would suggest that the newly elected arbitrators be given the choice after the election of which term they will fill, in order of most votes received. (I suspect that some might well _prefer_ the shorter term.) In addition, because three years is a long time in the life of a project that is only barely that old itself, I think we need a mechanism to readily replace arbitrators, so they feel more free to resign if life changes or burnout make them unable to participate effectively. In these situations, I propose that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees make interim appointments so the position can be filled until the next annual election cycle.
(The flattery is nice, ambi, but I'd rather first wait and hope lots of other good candidates come forward too. As I've said before, I encourage the arbitrators whose terms are expiring to run for re-election. I would add that I encourage anyone who ran last time to run again - or at least those who, to quote Fred again, aren't "more suited for the role of defendant than arbitrator.")
--Michael Snow
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
To deal with this, I propose that we take advantage of this election to restructure the Arbitration Committee and shrink its numbers to nine positions. I don't think a group as large as twelve is necessary, and there are considerable advantages to be gained from shrinkage, namely:
As time goes by more, not fewer cases need to go through the process. Thus we need more qualified people working on this to get things done.
Setting a minimum number of arbitrators needed to hear a case to 3, regardless of the number of total arbitrators there are, is the way to go, IMO (simple majority would still rule and more than 3 arbitrators could be part of any given decision in any case if they so choose). Any decision made by such a self-organized sub-committee would be subject to review by the entire ArbCom if at least one ArbCom member calls for a review and is seconded. Deliberations would be conducted on IRC and the results along with rationale would be posted on the wiki. A preponderance of evidence would explicitly be the standard of evidence (this is the standard used in civil court).
Everything else would pretty much work as it does now ; with the caveat that any minor wrinkles will be worked out by the ArbCom as time goes by.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
To deal with this, I propose that we take advantage of this election to restructure the Arbitration Committee and shrink its numbers to nine positions. I don't think a group as large as twelve is necessary, and there are considerable advantages to be gained from shrinkage, namely:
As time goes by more, not fewer cases need to go through the process. Thus we need more qualified people working on this to get things done.
Setting a minimum number of arbitrators needed to hear a case to 3, regardless of the number of total arbitrators there are, is the way to go, IMO (simple majority would still rule and more than 3 arbitrators could be part of any given decision in any case if they so choose). Any decision made by such a self-organized sub-committee would be subject to review by the entire ArbCom if at least one ArbCom member calls for a review and is seconded. Deliberations would be conducted on IRC and the results along with rationale would be posted on the wiki. A preponderance of evidence would explicitly be the standard of evidence (this is the standard used in civil court).
Everything else would pretty much work as it does now ; with the caveat that any minor wrinkles will be worked out by the ArbCom as time goes by.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
As time goes by more, not fewer cases need to go through the process.
Thus we
need more qualified people working on this to get things done.
Setting a minimum number of arbitrators needed to hear a case to 3, regardless of the number of total arbitrators there are, is the way to go, IMO (simple majority would still rule and more than 3 arbitrators could be part of any given decision in any case if they so choose). Any decision made by such a self-organized sub-committee would be subject to review by the entire ArbCom if at least one ArbCom member calls for a review and is seconded. Deliberations would be conducted on IRC and the results along with rationale would be posted on the wiki. A preponderance of evidence would explicitly be the standard of evidence (this is the standard used in civil court).
What I wonder is why in all the proposals so far the idea of a time limit didn't come up. Essentially, nobody spends four whole months deliberating on a case.
Set a fix deadline (maybe two weeks?) in which a case should be decided. If a case is really that complex that it requires more consideration, the arb committee can decide to extend the deadline for another two weeks.
For reference the rules in the german wikipedia on user bans on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung: * an attempt of mediation or evidence of serious debate is required * a ban request must be supported by two users, otherwise it is removed from the list after 12 hours * the accused user should be notified and has 12 hours to issue a statement (he can do it later, too, but the vote doesn't start before) * one week voting period, two-third majority and at least ten pro-votes required for a ban to be effective. * 200 edits on articles and 2 month membership required for voting
The german system has some flaws (IMO the time limits are _very_ short), but has worked quite well so far. The community doesn't take such decisions lightly and examines quite thoroughly if a ban request is substantiated.
greetings, elian