[WikiEN-l] Arbcom

[George Herbert]

On 10/14/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/14/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/14/07, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> > > I made one suggestion, which might not be particularly workable.
> > Regardless, we need to find solutions.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> >
> > I had an idea a while ago, I don't remember if I ever presented it before.
> >
> > Why not have cases heard before a panel of 5 Arbitrators, randomly
> > chosen from the list of Arbitrators active when the case was accepted?
> > Cases that are voted out 5-0 or 4-1 would close as is; cases where
> > the votes were 3-2 or less would be heard before the entire committee.
> > That way, Arbitrators do not have to hear every case, and might not
> > burn out as quickly. (A vote of 5-0 is all most cases get by the Fall
> > of the year anyway.)
>
>
> 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.)
>
> Kirill

I was thinking of this when the discussion started, but my initial
idea was to use a 3-arbitrator panel rather than 5.

That was based off US Federal Courts of Appeal - they have a pool of
judges, with 3-judge panels brought together for specific cases.  One
can then appeal to the whole Court in a particular district if one
doesn't like the ruling from the group of 3.

Another thing that occurs to me is that we could do 4 instead of 3,
even.  Yes, it's an even number, so one can tie... but we're not
looking for "what to do about ties", we're looking for "how can we
dispose of things that end up obvious reasonably quickly".  More
things will fall into the latter category (I hope), and a 3:1 vote (or
3 to an abstention or idle arbitrator) is good enough for majority or
consensus.  A tie is a kick-it-to-entire-arbcom.

Or even a single arbitrator for cases, with "punt to a 3/4/5/whatever
larger group" as an accepted option for the ugly cases.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com