On 11/11/04 4:41 PM, "Rebecca" misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
Once someone does sort through it, and proposes something, the actual voting is comparatively unproblematic. There have been occasions when voting has been too slow, but that can be dealt with by e.g. leaving nagging messages on peoples' talk pages. The biggest and hardest to overcome delays are those where voting has simply never started, because nobody had the time or inclination to wade through the pile of evidence and accusations to distill a set of options to vote on in the first place. How to solve that I don't really know.
It shouldn't be awfully hard. At the moment, we have less than half the arbitrators prepared to do this - Fred, James, Mav, Jw and Raul. I don't think I've missed anyone. The simple answer is that we need another seven who are equally prepared to put in the time and get this done.
My problem isn't the wading through the evidence. I actually enjoy that. It's coming up with the list of "Findings of fact" and "principle" in the proper form...I can handle a conversational analysis much more easily. I think what I need to do is make a list of the findings of fact and principle we've used previously. Maybe I'll do that right now.