On 10/5/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:22 AM, DF wrote:
Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool
of
Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as some people had proposed (though one might have trouble finding enough people to run).
The problem wouldn't be finding enough people to run. We had 34 people running last time. The problem would be that, if we had taken 30 arbitrators last time, we'd have six arbitrators who are under various forms of arbcom parole, including one who is currently banned for a year.
I'm sure I meant to say trouble finding enough Qualified people to run.
Of course if we went to a system more like Requests for adminship that wouldn't be an issue since the questionable candidates would never get through. Of course we would have to give up the notion that ArbCom needs to be a fixed size.
On the other hand, since the Wikipedia community has roughly tripled in size, maybe finding candidates this December won't be all that hard. Of course it would help if we could stop scaring them off by making it look like such a hard and all-consuming job.
On another point, why do we ever lose Arbitrators? They resign in frustration or their terms expire, but neither of those issues indicates a lack of faith from the community. A larger and looser structure could allow people to have sabaticals and still come back to help with the work later.
-DF