[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths

[Michael Snow]

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Rebecca wrote:
>  
>
>>There's absolutely no reason why said arbitrator should be allowed to
>>continue serving - he wasn't elected, he's done basically nothing in
>>months, and he's been approached about the matter several times, with,
>>as far as I can see, no response. While we've just had elections, now
>>seems to me to be the perfect time to do something - there's a couple
>>of people who only missed out by one or two votes who would be quite
>>capable replacements.
>>    
>>
>I agree with this completely.  Will you research for me which arbs
>have been least active, and I'll email to ask them about their plans
>for the future, and then make some decisions.
>
I already did this before the election, to try and move the issue along. 
See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Level_of_arbitrator_participation

Since then, we've elected replacements for Camembert and Gutza, while 
Mav and Delirium have stepped up their participation in the process 
again. That leaves Nohat.

>There's no indignity in
>people stepping down because they won't have time to deal with it.
>  
>
None at all, as I've tried to point out. But as the position of 
arbitrator has evolved, it carries with it a certain obligation to the 
community - more so than admins, who aren't individually required to 
exercise their functions if they don't feel like handling, say, page 
protections. Part of that obligation is knowing when to step aside.

--Michael Snow