[WikiEN-l] Arbcom

[Todd Allen]

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>> It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than the current model,
>>>       
>> actually,
>>     
>>> since there's no provision for the scenario where none of the five
>>> randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work.  In a
>>>       
>> system
>>     
>>> where the full Committee hears every case, a few active members can keep
>>> things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't
>>> actively participating.
>>>
>>> (Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any*
>>>       
>> five
>>     
>>> active arbs, but, in the new model, we would select five arbs first and
>>>       
>> then
>>     
>>> expect them to be active -- which is a rather dangerous assumption to
>>>       
>> make.)
>>
>> You make a good point. It should work, though, as long as the arbs are
>> honest about when they are and aren't able to be active. They'll be
>> occasions when something comes up and an arb becomes unexpectedly
>> inactive, but in most cases they should know far enough in advance
>> whether they are able to take on a case or not. An inactive arb can be
>> replaced by one of the others if necessary, of course.
>>     
>
>
> "Active" doesn't mean quite what you're assuming it does, though.  An active
> arbitrator is merely one that's participated *in some way* in the recent
> past; it doesn't constrain them to a particular level of activity.
>
> The basic process of a case is something like this:
>
> 1. Case submitted
> 1a. Delay
> 2. Case accepted
> 3. Evidence submitted
> 3a. Long delay
> 4. Proposed decision drafted
> 5. Voting begins
> 5a. Long delay
> 6. Case closed
>
> A random panel would essentially attempt to decrease the voting delay (5a)
> by reducing the number of needed votes, at the cost of increasing the
> drafting delay (3a) by reducing the chance that an arbitrator would be
> available to draft a decision (something which, historically, not all
> arbitrators do a lot of).
>
> You could, I suppose, have a system where arbitrators not on the voting
> panel could draft a decision for the panel to consider; but that doesn't
> seem very helpful.  Alternatively, you could reduce the voting delay by
> allowing unopposed cases to pass with smaller majorities, but that would be
> yet another can of worms.
>
> Kirill
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>   
Why not allow clerks to draft proposals? The arbitrators would still be
the only ones allowed to -vote-, of course, but I see no harm in letting
a clerk make a suggestion. If it's poor, it'll just get voted against
anyway.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20071014/21f6533e/attachment-0001.pgp