I asked a question here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_...
and here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Arbcom_elections
basically I think it's a good idea to confirm the voting system for our arbcom elections, including how the election winners will be ascertained, in nice good time :-)
Interestingly (to me!) - a question concerning the role of the Foundation / The Board / Jimbo has come up, and I realise that I don't really know how accurate my understanding that the Foundation aren't really involved is. Further - User:UltraExact mentioned that s/he might have seen some analysis on past elections done somewhere (or maybe discussion of exactly this kind!) - so I thought I'd ask if anyone else has come across it, or could even link to it :-)
I'll just myself quote from the wiki page above; "I'd assume (and propose, and support) the straight forward election of 7 people to the vacant seats, with seats 6 and 7 filling the recently resigned posts, and hence being up for re-election sooner than their peers. By 'straight forward' I mean 'highest percentage of support' - and I really hope that this is uncontroversial enough to get broad approval well ahead of time :-) "
I'd be very interested to hear thoughts and further discussion both here, and 'on-wiki' :-)
best,
Peter PM.
Something that comes up each time - and your description/proposal is not completely accurate. Typically, the "straightforward election" mirrors the actual outcome, but Jimmy is the step in between - if for some reason an editor is elected that he believes is unsuited, then that person is not appointed to the committee.
He has said many times, in various places, that his role with the Arbitration Committee, and policy in general on the English Wikipedia, is unrelated to his position on the Board. The Board takes no active role in any ArbCom elections, on any project, and Jimmy's role is specific to the English Wikipedia community.
Confirming the voting system before the election would make sense if the system were in question - it isn't. There are objectors now like there have been in the past on this and just about everything else in Wikipedia, but there appears to be no serious doubt as to how this election will proceed.
Of course, you're welcome to start an RfC on the election process or even on Jimmy's role in the community. I don't think the '08 elections talkpage (which is typically used for more mundane decisions, and is not heavily trafficked) is the right venue and I doubt any limited-participation straw polls from that page will be regarded as binding.
Nathan