[WikiEN-l] Shrink the Arbitration Committee (was Broken dispute resolution mechanisms)

[Michael Snow]

Rebecca wrote:

>I don't think mav's idea is a bad one, if a little negative. It's
>certainly a possibility.
>
>However, we could always just try and convince better candidates...The
>Committee to Conscript Michael Snow, anyone?
>
>-- ambi
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:30:16 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
><maveric149 at yahoo.com <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
>> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
>> > We need to be careful to not open more postions than there are reasonably
>> > well qualified candidates (of whom I count you as one). Some of the
>> > candidates in the last election seemed much more suited for the role of
>> > defendant than arbitrator.
>> 
>> I agree with this completely. Therefore votes against candidates should also be
>> allowed - only the top candidates with a net positive vote will be elected (5
>> options would be given, from strongly approve to strongly disapprove). If that
>> means that some seats remain empty, then so be it.
>
I like mav's idea, but I would take it just a little bit further. Based 
on the experience of the past year, I think having twelve positions on 
the Arbitration Committee is more than we need, period. I would like to 
elaborate on my previous proposal, which I recognize would have put most 
of the positions up to be filled in this election (and this before I 
even heard the sad news of Martin Harper's impending resignation). I'm 
not completely surprised to have heard quite a bit of concern over 
whether that many qualified candidates exist, although personally I had 
hopes that opening more positions would encourage more candidates to 
come forward instead of deferring to those first out of the gate.

To deal with this, I propose that we take advantage of this election to 
restructure the Arbitration Committee and shrink its numbers to nine 
positions. I don't think a group as large as twelve is necessary, and 
there are considerable advantages to be gained from shrinkage, namely:

*Deliberations among arbitrators can reach "quorum" more quickly, which 
would generally speed things up a bit and address one of the biggest 
complaints about the process. (The number of votes required to accept or 
reject cases should be reduced proportionally, to three.)
*As 9, unlike 12, is an odd number, the potential for deadlock is 
avoided - though I anticipate that the arbitrators would work to avoid 
issuing 5-4 rulings.
*Smaller numbers encourage participants to feel greater personal 
responsibility for successful outcomes.
*In addition to the six positions soon to be up for election, this would 
allow us to relieve Camembert, Delirium, and Nohat of their 
responsibilities without anyone needing to be concerned over who might 
replace them. Camembert and Delirium have both already indicated an 
inclination to resign, and Nohat has shown relatively little interest in 
arbitration matters.

Because 9 is still divisible by 3, we can retain Jimbo's initial concept 
of having the arbitrators serve staggered 3-year terms. This would mean 
that instead of elections for four arbitrators to serve 3-year terms, 
and two more to fill unexpired terms for 2 years, we would elect three 
people to 3-year terms and three more to 2-year terms. The three 
remaining arbitrators appointed by Jimbo would be up for re-election at 
the end of 2005.

Due to the difference in term length, I would suggest that the newly 
elected arbitrators be given the choice after the election of which term 
they will fill, in order of most votes received. (I suspect that some 
might well _prefer_ the shorter term.) In addition, because three years 
is a long time in the life of a project that is only barely that old 
itself, I think we need a mechanism to readily replace arbitrators, so 
they feel more free to resign if life changes or burnout make them 
unable to participate effectively. In these situations, I propose that 
the Wikimedia Board of Trustees make interim appointments so the 
position can be filled until the next annual election cycle.

(The flattery is nice, ambi, but I'd rather first wait and hope lots of 
other good candidates come forward too. As I've said before, I encourage 
the arbitrators whose terms are expiring to run for re-election. I would 
add that I encourage anyone who ran last time to run again - or at least 
those who, to quote Fred again, aren't "more suited for the role of 
defendant than arbitrator.")

--Michael Snow