Speaking with the benefit of only a few months' experience in the Fellowship of the Oft-Maligned, I'd like to share my probably idiosyncratic perspective on all this.
Arbitration needs fixing, and I like many of the ideas in the proposals. I agree with Michael that 12 arbitrators is too many (particularly when many choose not to participate) -- I like the proposal (from both mav and Michael, I think) that small committees (of, say, three) of arbitrators should hear cases. I think it would be a much easier task to corral two other people's attention and focus it on a case, rather than the huge slate we currently have. I doubt very much that the AC's decisions would be substantially different than they are now. If we allow small panels to do this, I would suggest the right of appeal to the whole AC, however (checks and balances are good, I think). If, say, 4 of the 6 arbitrators who didn't hear the case wish to revisit it, it would be done. I think this would be a rarely taken option (I would have to be quite convinced of trouble to revisit another arbitration panel's case), but in the case of a truly unmerited result, I think it offers the community reasonable recourse. I hope something like this proposal is eventually adopted.
On the IRC issue, however, I disagree with the sentiments I've seen. I have never used email to confer with another arbitrator, and would prefer not ever to do so. I think that the best strength of arbitration thus far is its transparency, and I affirm Woodrow Wilson's principle of "open covenants, openly arrived at". I do not use IRC as a matter of course, and I doubt my current Internet connection would allow me to participate in an IRC conversation with any great skill -- the lag time would be significant, though not entirely insurmountable. More to the point, though, I have never seen IRC as a good tool for reaching important decisions -- it is too quick, it favors the swift to type, and it speeds people to rash and unwarranted conclusions. I believe that using it for arbitration would lead to speedier decisions, yes, but also decisions that were less clear, less well considered, and ultimately much less fair. I would not serve on such a committee, so if it is the community's intention to prusue IRC as the primary medium of arbitration, I would not stand for reelection (not that my presence or absence will much affect the AC, I think). I'm not using this as a threat, by the way -- if the community wants it, I have always been an advocate for consensus and I would accept it as a part of Wikipedia. But I would not want to be a part of such a body -- I envision frustration, regrets, and ultimately a fundamental lack of certainty that my decisions had been truly wise.
I don't think we should be surprised at the scarcity of candidates. Given the uncertainty of the AC's future, I think you'll find it hard to get anyone to commit to standing for reelection (or consider running for an initial term). No one knows what the AC will look like in January. I urge that we decide in the next week to ten days about the future of arbitration, in order that all potential candidates have time to consider standing for the position in the full knowledge of what that position will entail. I, for one, will be unable to commit until we know.
Finally, I just want to note to Tim, Mav, Michael, and all the others discussing the future of arbitration that I respect their ideas, I appreciate and applaud their energy, and I don't want my words to keep anyone from continuing to consider IRC as a possibility. I think we should probably consider all possible avenues, and I'm very pleased that you are. I just felt I should say something, and now I've said it. Best wishes and happy collaboration to all,
James W. Rosenzweig
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com