Tim Starling wrote:

Rebecca wrote:

...

I think is an excellent idea: kudos to you both.

The two things that I'd been keen to know first, however, are - would this involve a reduction in the number of arbitrators, as in Michael's proposal,

No. The number of arbitrators could well be increased. Michael wanted to reduce the number of arbitrators to reduce the number of people required for a decision, our proposal is to reduce that number more directly, while retaining a low workload on each arbitrator and keeping a wide variety of views on the committee.

There remains a problem, which is that if you take more arbitrators and divide them into smaller panels, but have panel decisions subject to review by the full committee, then the full committee will be too large to work effectively as a body. If twelve is too many now, what if we have thirty?

I think there are good ideas in all of the proposals that have been advanced, and we can put something workable together. I would suggest that the current Arbitration Committee continue in existence, but shrink to nine members, and primarily handle reviews of decisions by three-person panels. The panels would be drawn from a larger pool with no fixed number of positions. This pool we might call magistrates.

A panel would consist of three people as proposed - any combination of magistrates and arbitrators could form the panel. The panel would have the same authority as the Arbitration Committee has now. It could place users on revert parole or personal attack parole, issue standing orders, and also impose bans.

Panels can be formed on an ad hoc basis and deliberate wherever appropriate and convenient for the magistrates. We can have a page for submitting cases and another where the magistrates document rulings, so the admins know which users are under some type of ban or probation.

This would allow smaller panels to reach relatively quick decisions. It would allow magistrates to self-select their workload to some extent, and those that can't or don't want to constantly be involved don't have to be. Meanwhile, the Arbitration Committee would remain a more deliberate process, although I also agree with elian's suggestion that arbitration could use more explicit deadlines. Something like one or two weeks for participants to present their evidence, then an additional week or two for deliberations, with some flexibility according to the nature of the case.

There remains the question of how to choose a substantial pool of magistrates. Should we work this in as part of the arbitration election, and if so, will we get enough people? Should we have Jimbo or the Board make appointments, or take volunteers subject to an approval process in a way similar to adminship? When this kind of idea has been discussed in the past, it has often been in the context of having _all admins_ be what I'm calling "magistrates". But I think that approach will get nowhere because too many people are uncomfortable with giving certain existing admins that kind of power.

--Michael Snow