My feeling is that we should require at least 5 arbitrators to accept a case and those who accepted the case would be responsible for deciding it.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Carbonite wrote:
I agree with Tony that it would be difficult to sustain a very large number of arbitrators. However, if we had an efficient system for replacing arbitrators, I could see maintaining a "steady state" of 25-35. Replacements could be appointed by Jimbo, be elected as alternates during the regular ArbCom elections or we could utilize a system like the one suggested by Dragons's Flight. In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to create panels of 5-7 arbitrators so that the ArbCom could multi-task. Each panel would only handle a few cases at a time instead of the entire ArbCom having to examine the evidence of every open case. This might also help reduce the burnout that's inevitable when every arbitrator must hear every case. Carbonite _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l