I posted this question at the Village Pump last night, but it hasn't got much response (perhaps because most everyone was asleep at the time I wrote it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#How_many_Ar...
The crux of my point is that the number of active editors in Wikipedia has grown nearly 10 fold since ArbCom was created 2 years ago, while the number of Arbitrators has remained constant at 12.
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).
As an alternative, I suggested moving to a system more like Admins / Bureaucrats where we continually approve trusted members of the community to serve in this role and allow the pool to grow as needed to keep up with Wikipedia's growth. A pool of 50-100 trusted community members, working in groups of 10-15, could make short work of the backlog generally seen at RFArb.
-DF
Arbitration has justly been called the worst job on Wikipedia. Last year I seem to recall that only a couple of score of people ran for arbcom, and a number of those were plainly unsuitable candidates. I just don't think we'd be able to sustain more than say 20 arbitrators. It may be worth a try, though.
I agree with Tony that it would be difficult to sustain a very large number of arbitrators. However, if we had an efficient system for replacing arbitrators, I could see maintaining a "steady state" of 25-35. Replacements could be appointed by Jimbo, be elected as alternates during the regular ArbCom elections or we could utilize a system like the one suggested by Dragons's Flight. In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7 arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to examine the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the burnout that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case. Carbonite
On 10/5/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7 arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to examine the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the burnout that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case. Carbonite
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
Kelly
Would this "lower court filter" resemble a Wikipedia:NPOV committee?
SV
--- Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to
create panels of 5-7
arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task.
Each panel would only
handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire
ArbCom having to examine
the evidence of every open case. This might also
help reduce the burnout
that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear
every case.
Carbonite
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/5/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7 arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to examine the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the burnout that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case. Carbonite
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
Fred
I'll second that!
Theresa
On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
Fred
I'll second that!
Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough to be useful at it?
The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage, nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give it over to others to make the decisions.
I don't know anyone willing to do that.
It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
I wouldn't mind. Most of everything I do on wikipedia is mechanical, janitorial stuff (new pages patrol, copyvios, greeting newbies, some imagetagging, etc.) This would essentially be the same, just alot more work per case. I'm also an intelligent bloke, with very little history of disputes and a thorough knowledge of wp-polices and practices.
I'm sure I'm not alone, lots of people do staggeringly amounts of braindead, mind-numblingly boring stuff all the day.
--gkhan
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
Fred
I'll second that!
Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough to be useful at it?
The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage, nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give it over to others to make the decisions.
I don't know anyone willing to do that.
It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Peter principle would be hard at work here. Any decent advocate would seem to destined to be an arbitrator, but in fact the skills are different. Advocacy is presentation of a point of view, arbitration is deciding between points of view. Lack of application to digging though mountains of evidence does not vitiate understanding of appropriate choice of alternatives.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
Fred
I'll second that!
Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough to be useful at it?
The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage, nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give it over to others to make the decisions.
I don't know anyone willing to do that.
It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You know, I think the word advocacy is not really fitting, it's more like a clerkship what we are talking about. It's not like the person would be searching and trying to find evidence or make up arguments himself, he/she would just be given the evidence and be tasked to sort through it, organize it, find the important diffs an explain what is happening in them. It's not like they should argue the case.
--gkhan
On 10/6/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The Peter principle would be hard at work here. Any decent advocate would seem to destined to be an arbitrator, but in fact the skills are different. Advocacy is presentation of a point of view, arbitration is deciding between points of view. Lack of application to digging though mountains of evidence does not vitiate understanding of appropriate choice of alternatives.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
Fred
I'll second that!
Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough to be useful at it?
The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage, nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give it over to others to make the decisions.
I don't know anyone willing to do that.
It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Turley wrote:
It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
Yeah, this is why I think the lower-court judges would be the best way to do this. They still get to make a decision, but it could be reviewed and reversed later by ArbCom. The judge would more or less act as the advocate, since there could be more of them, and they would have fewer cases to handle individually, so they would have more time to do what ArbCom hates doing and gets burnt out on easily.
- - Ryan
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, this is why I think the lower-court judges would be the best way to do this. They still get to make a decision, but it could be reviewed and reversed later by ArbCom.
Mmm, this would make *more* work for arbcom, not less.
Perhaps a better way to manage caseload would be to have two or more autonomous circuits, each with say seven arbitrators. Jimmy Wales would still act as a court of ultimate appeal.
On 10/5/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a better way to manage caseload would be to have two or more autonomous circuits, each with say seven arbitrators. Jimmy Wales would still act as a court of ultimate appeal.
I worry about consistency in such cases. Jimbo shouldn't have to act as the sole resolver of "circuit conflict".
Kelly
On 10/5/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I worry about consistency in such cases. Jimbo shouldn't have to act as the sole resolver of "circuit conflict".
Kelly
He volenteered. Have a sytem for swticting members between groups of oit would be a problem.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Mmm, this would make *more* work for arbcom, not less.
Can you explain why you thinkEr, what? We must be misunderstanding each other, because as I am conceiving of this system, it would be impossible for ArbCom to have to do more work. At the absolute worst, it would be the same amount of work. it would be more work for them?
- - Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Somehow my last message got garbled a bit. Resending
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Mmm, this would make *more* work for arbcom, not less.
Er, what? We must be misunderstanding each other, because as I am conceiving of this system, it would be impossible for ArbCom to have to do more work. At the absolute worst, it would be the same amount of work. Can you explain why you think it would be more work for them?
- - Ryan
On 10/5/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Turley wrote:
It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
Yeah, this is why I think the lower-court judges would be the best way to do this. They still get to make a decision, but it could be reviewed and reversed later by ArbCom. The judge would more or less act as the advocate, since there could be more of them, and they would have fewer cases to handle individually, so they would have more time to do what ArbCom hates doing and gets burnt out on easily.
In an egalitarian society, why would anyone bother to arbitrate if they're going to be subject to review by some other arbitrators? It's not like we have any justification for hierarchy among arbitrators, since no one here has more than five years' experience, and most have none or almost none. It's not like we're reviewing your resume for relevant experience and doing background checks, either.
I prefer a panel of thirty to sixty or so potential arbitrators, from which a round-robin semi-random set of eleven or so vote whether each case has merit or not. Maybe a few of them would be "core arbitrators", two or three of whom are assigned each case. Allowing for recusals, burnouts, dropouts mid case, wikibreaks and vacations, eleven is just an arbitrary number that should give a broad base for any decisions, and should almost always result in a panel of seven or more to make the final decision.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
Kelly
I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty well in the U.S. courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear the appealed case unless they think something went /procedurally/ wrong in the lower court. This would give us near-infinite scalability while still maintaining accountability for the higher "judges" if you will. There aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in favor of creating a proposed policy to this end.
- - Ryan
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss,
either.
Kelly
I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty well in the U.S. courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear the appealed case unless they think something went /procedurally/ wrong in the lower court. This would give us near-infinite scalability while still maintaining accountability for the higher "judges" if you will. There aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in favor of creating a proposed policy to this end.
I guess I misunderstood Kelly's statement. A tiered-court idea is exactly whats called for - as opposed to just beefing up the size.
SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
Kelly
I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty well in the U.S. courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear the appealed case unless they think something went /procedurally/ wrong in the lower court. This would give us near-infinite scalability while still maintaining accountability for the higher "judges" if you will. There aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in favor of creating a proposed policy to this end.
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth. They judge on points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
Ec
On 10/6/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth. They judge on points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
I don't guarantee that the ArbCom would elect to refuse to consider new evidence on appeal. However, just having the case marshalled for review through the process of the preceding magisterial process will immensely help the ArbCom in its determinations.
The other appeal to a tiered system is that it will scale far better than most of the other proposals I've seen. Any system which has ArbCom as a court of original jurisdiction is going to have scaling problems in the long term, IMO.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/6/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth. They judge on points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
I don't guarantee that the ArbCom would elect to refuse to consider new evidence on appeal. However, just having the case marshalled for review through the process of the preceding magisterial process will immensely help the ArbCom in its determinations.
The other appeal to a tiered system is that it will scale far better than most of the other proposals I've seen. Any system which has ArbCom as a court of original jurisdiction is going to have scaling problems in the long term, IMO.
Absolutely. Having a single arbitrator rule on a new appeal would probably lead to a quicker result. This could be appealed to a panel, but the panel members should not accept to hear every case that comes before them. If they make a habit of accepting everything, then everything will be appealed.. By taking a stricter approach to this and what they will accept as evidence their task can be much easier.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
Ec
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
Michael Snow wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
--Michael Snow
I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)
Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said, this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.
Ryan
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)
Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said, this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.
There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator. If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
Keeping adminship "no big deal" has to include keeping the authorities granted to them in the same general class.
Further, I don't think I should be excluded as a possible arbitrator simply because I have no interest in the toolbox of an admin other than rollback. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator. If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
Keeping adminship "no big deal" has to include keeping the authorities granted to them in the same general class.
I'm also in agreement that the notion of letting any admin volunteer to act as an adjudicator on any dispute is a bad idea.
First, you have the issue that adminship is currently "no big deal". If we give admins the right to make unilateral binding decisions (even if subject to appeal) with the full authority of the ArbCom, then suddenly adminship is no longer "no big deal". We'd really need to reconfirm all our current admins to this new standard, and I bet a lot of them would fail to meet it.
Second, allowing people to pick and choose what issues they will offer justice on is an open invitation to bias. If a candidate jurist has a POV on a particular issue, he will want to judge it in order to impose his POV. I oppose any system in which assignment to cases is on a voluntary basis; all of our jurists should take the cases as they come, with the option (and obligation) to recuse in case of conflict.
As to the problem of getting people to want to serve as magistrates (which is, frankly, a really nasty job, almost as bad as that of arbitrator, and with less prestige and power): the one selling point is that it stands to reason that magistrates will naturally be the most probable candidates to become future arbitrators, and are likely to be called on to serve as temporary arbitrators to fill vacancies and so forth. Combine that with the fact that there are some crazy people who enjoy being jurists, and I think we can scare up enough qualified people to at least blunt the storm somewhat.
And, on top of that, I will personally buy a round of drinks for anyone who serves as a magistrate, at every Wikimania I attend. :)
Kelly
The same obligation would apply to everyone.
Fred
On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:38 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
Second, allowing people to pick and choose what issues they will offer justice on is an open invitation to bias. If a candidate jurist has a POV on a particular issue, he will want to judge it in order to impose his POV. I oppose any system in which assignment to cases is on a voluntary basis; all of our jurists should take the cases as they come, with the option (and obligation) to recuse in case of conflict.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator. If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
- - Ryan
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator. If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
By the same process we do now, just create more vacancies to fill.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator. If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
- Ryan
I can see something like the current Mediation Committee request process working: a sort of unstructured request, with general agreement from the community and no veto by the arbcom, to form a pool of people to draw from.
I do think as some others have that not every suitable admin would be a suitable arbitrator/magistrate/clerk -- though quite a few would. It's a few additional skills and a more specific sort of personality required.
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]]
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
The current mediation process doesn't work very well, for exactly those reasons, and should not be used an an example of what to do w the ArbCom. They are making changes and improvements, but it is despite, rather than because of their selection process, that it is occuring.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/6/05, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator. If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
- Ryan
I can see something like the current Mediation Committee request process working: a sort of unstructured request, with general agreement from the community and no veto by the arbcom, to form a pool of people to draw from.
I do think as some others have that not every suitable admin would be a suitable arbitrator/magistrate/clerk -- though quite a few would. It's a few additional skills and a more specific sort of personality required.
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]]
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Whatever the name or the composition and size caps, there seems to be general agreement that the dispute resolution process needs to be expanded --most likely into a tiered system. This basic agreement needs to be validated by confirmations not just on this list, but by a site-wide vote using the vote machine.
While that gets in the works, I think its appropriate to formalize all the various proposals for how this expansion could or should work --such as Ryan's seniority-tiered idea or my notion of separating committees deal with reviewing policy from those dealing with conflicts of personality.
SV PS: I'd suggest even formalizing a process whereby the community (with a permissive wave of JW's scepter) can proceed with any use of the voting machine it feels is appropriate.
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
points of law rather than facts. It would be up to
the lower
ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of
irrelevant material
that is often raised.
Ec
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
Michael Snow wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current
size (or close to it)
and establish lower courts to filter off the
relatively easy stuff and
to organize the cases into a form so that when
they do appeal the
ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time
marshalling the case.
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the
election last year:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
We would simply need to figure out the number of
magistrates (my
term for the people on the next level down) and
how to select them.
--Michael Snow
I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)
Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said, this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.
Ryan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDRVzN6MKb8lYmCtcRAsfDAJ4wMmAYMqxLltYU7Mf7tAbYDQNTfACgnh8T
gGTIqpfvtsPIiD/vp4atReg= =4l65 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Ryan Delaney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
Ec
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
Points of law relate to the interpretation of laws. Points of fact relate to establishing what happened.
In a murder trial establishing that the accused really pulled the fatal trigger would establish a point of fact. Whether that established act was murder would be a point of law.
There should be no need for everybody to wade through a lot of claims that have nothing to do with the issues being appealed.
Ec
On 10/6/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth. They judge on points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
Oh please don't let's repeat the recent VFU idiocy again, refusing to look at what's in front of our faces because of some sterile rules. Wikipedia isn't a court system of a legislature.
Arbcom *should* look at facts, and make a judgement that fits the circumstances, not some abstract law.
Why would Wikipedians be hamstrung in this way?
Fred
On Oct 6, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
Kelly
I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty well in the U.S. courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear the appealed case unless they think something went /procedurally/ wrong in the lower court. This would give us near-infinite scalability while still maintaining accountability for the higher "judges" if you will. There aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in favor of creating a proposed policy to this end.
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth. They judge on points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material that is often raised.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
By the way, if anyone here hasn't seen it yet, I've still got a sandboxed policy proposal to reform the arbitration policy (as per the discussion in this old thread) up at [[User:Ryan_Delaney/sandbox]]. Comments welcome, either here or on the talk page of my sandbox. :-)
Ryan
My feeling is that we should require at least 5 arbitrators to accept a case and those who accepted the case would be responsible for deciding it.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Carbonite wrote:
I agree with Tony that it would be difficult to sustain a very large number of arbitrators. However, if we had an efficient system for replacing arbitrators, I could see maintaining a "steady state" of 25-35. Replacements could be appointed by Jimbo, be elected as alternates during the regular ArbCom elections or we could utilize a system like the one suggested by Dragons's Flight. In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7 arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to examine the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the burnout that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case. Carbonite _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
My feeling is that we should require at least 5 arbitrators to accept a case and those who accepted the case would be responsible for deciding it.
Fred
But certainly 5 isn't a big leap from 4.
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
As I previously suggested, we need to run arbitrators through the test of whether they are willing and able to do the work (and take the pressure). I suggest a wide funnel collecting potential arbitrators and easy removal of those who try but fail (measuring failure by actual participation).
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Arbitration has justly been called the worst job on Wikipedia. Last year I seem to recall that only a couple of score of people ran for arbcom, and a number of those were plainly unsuitable candidates. I just don't think we'd be able to sustain more than say 20 arbitrators. It may be worth a try, though. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
As I previously suggested, we need to run arbitrators through the test of whether they are willing and able to do the work (and take the pressure). I suggest a wide funnel collecting potential arbitrators and easy removal of those who try but fail (measuring failure by actual participation).
Fred
Want a guineau pig for a test of that? Sounds great to me, and I'm interested in running for arbcom. I think. I'm not really sure of anything.
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
I encourage anyone to run, but to not be surprised if the actual work is both confusing and tedious. When you dig into the diffs, it often takes some mulling over to figure out what is going on. An appropriate remedy, not too much, not too little is another matter, then there is the process of arriving at agreement among arbitrators.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Phroziac wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
As I previously suggested, we need to run arbitrators through the test of whether they are willing and able to do the work (and take the pressure). I suggest a wide funnel collecting potential arbitrators and easy removal of those who try but fail (measuring failure by actual participation).
Fred
Want a guineau pig for a test of that? Sounds great to me, and I'm interested in running for arbcom. I think. I'm not really sure of anything.
Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDREARVLzO3sKvVBcRAkzlAJ46JdNPcSBVljphihYPf/+fKd//5QCfSAzu 9K8OhSl3Z9czcVpnIIxrbLc= =PDgH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
I encourage anyone to run, but to not be surprised if the actual work is both confusing and tedious. When you dig into the diffs, it often takes some mulling over to figure out what is going on. An appropriate remedy, not too much, not too little is another matter, then there is the process of arriving at agreement among arbitrators.
Fred
Where and how do you run? - -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
On 10/5/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Where and how do you run?
Nominations have not yet opened. When they do thry will be hard to miss.
-- geni
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.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu AIM: Snowspinner
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On 10/5/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
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.
That's a good point, we don't want to increase the ArbCom to the point where we'd have to take anyone that applies. Perhaps we could set a cutoff so only candidates who received at least X% approval are eligible for serving on the ArbCom. For example, in the December 2004 election, Theresa Knott had the highest, at 51%. The other candidates elected to the ArbCom in December 2004 were: Raul654 - 42% Ambi - 39% Sannse - 36% Neutrality - 33% David Gerard - 32% Grunt - 31% If we set a cutoff of 20%, also elected in December 2004 would have been: Fennec -31% Mirv - 31% Cecropia - 31% James F. - 30% Ed Poor - 28% Hephaestos - 27% Charles Matthews - 25% 172 - 24% The Cunctator - 24% Overall, that's still a pretty strong group of candidates. It's only when you start dipping below 20% and especially below 10% that some candidates would face opposition (I'm not going to name any names). We could state that the top N candidates will be elected to the ArbCom, provided they receive at least X% support. The values of N and X would need to be discussed and/or simply decided by Jimbo. If fewer than N candidates have X% support, the ArbCom is smaller than desired, but would almost certainly be larger than its current size. Carbonite
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Carbonite wrote:
We could state that the top N candidates will be elected to the ArbCom, provided they receive at least X% support. The values of N and X would need to be discussed and/or simply decided by Jimbo. If fewer than N candidates have X% support, the ArbCom is smaller than desired, but would almost certainly be larger than its current size. Carbonite
Alternatively, we could just let Jimbo go down the list and pick how many arbitrators he wants. He would have to start at the top and work his way down, but he gets to decide when to stop. I would be more happy with that system, because it would be a reasonable balance of power between him and the commoners (he couldn't just pick his buddies to sit on arbcom) but it would prevent situations where, say, one year not a lot of people run for ArbCom so Plautus Satire gets elected by default.
- - Ryan
The problem with this is that Jimbo, genius that he is, does not actively edit and has very limited information to base his choices on.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Carbonite wrote:
We could state that the top N candidates will be elected to the ArbCom, provided they receive at least X% support. The values of N and X would need to be discussed and/or simply decided by Jimbo. If fewer than N candidates have X% support, the ArbCom is smaller than desired, but would almost certainly be larger than its current size. Carbonite
Alternatively, we could just let Jimbo go down the list and pick how many arbitrators he wants. He would have to start at the top and work his way down, but he gets to decide when to stop. I would be more happy with that system, because it would be a reasonable balance of power between him and the commoners (he couldn't just pick his buddies to sit on arbcom) but it would prevent situations where, say, one year not a lot of people run for ArbCom so Plautus Satire gets elected by default.
- Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDRCJR6MKb8lYmCtcRAkfeAJ9DsWX8ZG8n/4cwuZpgLFfkkW5y0ACfRZFo bo2BtfxJnnudFyh9oGH2T/A= =tSfm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
All right, but that doesn't speak to the suggestion Kelly was making. Whether you think we need "advocates" or not, the idea on the table is a tiered court system to replace the single court with original jurisdiction that we have now. Rather than ArbCom having original jurisdiction in various cases, there would be several committees -- or maybe even courts judged by a single editor -- that would have original jurisdiction in all arbitration cases. ArbCom would only have juridsiction to hear cases by appeal.
Dividing the work in this way would mean you could add to the number of arbitrators without too much risk, because if someone makes insane decisions, "senior arbitrators" on ArbCom would still have the opportunity to review them. It would also reduce the work load, since ArbCom would have the decision by the arbitrator to go on, so maybe they would agree with his or her reasoning but think the punishment was too harsh and shorten it -- this would require one, maybe two votes, rather than months of combing through evidence. Alternatively they could reject the appeal all together and let the previous decision stand.
This suggestion seems to solve the scalability problems while preserving final authority in the hands of a few trusted, community-appointed editors.
Fred Bauder wrote:
The problem with this is that Jimbo, genius that he is, does not actively edit and has very limited information to base his choices on.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
That didn't stop him from appointing arbitrators last time.
- - Ryan
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.
Best, Phil Sandifer
Perhaps but if that looked like happening I suspect more would run.
-- geni
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).
I fail to see how having more arbitrators would do anything but cause the process to be less efficient. The only reason we have more than one arbitrator is because it's more democratic that way, not because it's more efficient.
Many folks who run for arbitrator, and are elected, fail to work out, as being a Wikipedia Arbitrator involves very tedious and time consuming research into the edits made by the parties. I suggest that all administrators be considered potential arbitrators. Those among the administrators who are willing and able to do the work involved should, by demonstration of their work, assume the role.
I suggest that any administrator should be able to "accept" an arbitration and then participate in resolving it.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:22 AM, DF wrote:
I posted this question at the Village Pump last night, but it hasn't got much response (perhaps because most everyone was asleep at the time I wrote it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy% 29#How_many_Arbitrators_should_we_have.3F
The crux of my point is that the number of active editors in Wikipedia has grown nearly 10 fold since ArbCom was created 2 years ago, while the number of Arbitrators has remained constant at 12.
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).
As an alternative, I suggested moving to a system more like Admins / Bureaucrats where we continually approve trusted members of the community to serve in this role and allow the pool to grow as needed to keep up with Wikipedia's growth. A pool of 50-100 trusted community members, working in groups of 10-15, could make short work of the backlog generally seen at RFArb.
-DF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote:
Many folks who run for arbitrator, and are elected, fail to work out, as being a Wikipedia Arbitrator involves very tedious and time consuming research into the edits made by the parties. I suggest that all administrators be considered potential arbitrators. Those among the administrators who are willing and able to do the work involved should, by demonstration of their work, assume the role.
I suggest that any administrator should be able to "accept" an arbitration and then participate in resolving it.
Fred
Sounds good to me.
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Phroziac wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Many folks who run for arbitrator, and are elected, fail to work out, as being a Wikipedia Arbitrator involves very tedious and time consuming research into the edits made by the parties. I suggest that all administrators be considered potential arbitrators. Those among the administrators who are willing and able to do the work involved should, by demonstration of their work, assume the role.
I suggest that any administrator should be able to "accept" an arbitration and then participate in resolving it.
Fred
Sounds good to me.
Agreed. If we can't trust admins, who *can* we trust?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax wrote:
Agreed. If we can't trust admins, who *can* we trust?
Wiktionary admins! ehehe. Remember the incident? :)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
From: DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com
I posted this question at the Village Pump last night, but it hasn't got much response (perhaps because most everyone was asleep at the time I wrote it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#How_many_Ar...
The crux of my point is that the number of active editors in Wikipedia has grown nearly 10 fold since ArbCom was created 2 years ago, while the number of Arbitrators has remained constant at 12.
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).
I think the main issue is that the Committee can't seem to keep 12 *active* arbitrators - I think the most it's ever hit has been around 8, and typically there are only 5 or so active aribtrators.
Jay.