I agree with Angela completely. The real problem I see with 3 years is just that experience shows that many arbcom members will not stick around that long -- the job is just too exhausting.
On the other hand, elections are quite stressful for the candidates as well.
My plan is to watch the caseload and possibly expand the committee with new appointments fairly quickly if it seems warranted.
Angela wrote:
I don't think three years is excessive. It might seem a long time since Wikipedia is a relatively young project, but the experience which arbitrators will build up during that three year period will be invaluable in assisting them in making good decisions.
If there is a danger that people will feel "Wikipedia is somehow run by a cabal" then I believe the solution to that is to enlarge the size of the arbitration committee, not to reduce the length of time arbitrators can serve.
Having elections more regularly could negatively affect the way arbitrators work, since they would be more concerned about getting re-elected than doing the job for which they were elected. The election process should not be allowed to interfere with the workings of the committee, and I believe that making arbitrators go through this so regularly could be damaging.
Angela (just my view, not necessarily that of the Foundation) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l