Ray Saintonge wrote
The question here is not whether we trust them for three years, but whether they can last when they find out how much work is really involved.
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
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
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
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
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
The question here is not whether we trust them for three years, but whether they can last when they find out how much work is really involved.
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.
You seem to be making my point for me. After nine months of useful work, and three months of awakening to the fact that it's too much brings us to the first renewal. What I'm trying to distinguish are community-side concerns such as whether the person can be trusted, and concerns on the individual Arbcom member's side such as how fast one is exhausted by the job. I agree that pacing is important but that's something that one learns from experience. The good faith assumption is that an Arbcom newbie wants to do a good job, but that the size of the task does not register until he takes time to try to hard.
Ec