This issue was raised on the pages for the 2008 election of the Arbitrators Committee, and while I haven't been involved in that discussion I think its important to get a wide array of eyeballs on this particular question: Should the term of election for the Arbitration Committee be reduced to two years, from three, with annual elections?
I think a one year term, and certainly anything shorter than that, risks destroying institutional memory and over-politicizing the arbitration process. Three years was obviously devised to insulate the Committee members from the intermittent changes in the will and makeup of the community, and also to ensure that the committee had a long institutional memory with regards to ongoing issues and past decisions.
What I think is clear to most people is that a position on the Committee is a difficult and trying role. They are the last resort for disputes that have become bitter enough or severe enough that other community-based processes are unable to provide a solution. Every decision further embitters some, and some decisions leave absolutely everyone cold. The point is that being an arbitrator is a tough job, and it is mostly unacknowledged and unrewarded. We have all seen arbitrators become bitter about the process and its cases, we've all seen activity die off in formerly heavily involved arbitrators. Arbitrators have resigned early in dismay (including again, just today), and others who manage to complete a term essentially disappear from Wikipedia.
On the ArbCom RfC and the election page, three current arbitrators and one former arbitrator have expressed support for reducing the term of election for arbitrators to 2 years. In a separate section on the RfC, 25 editors (including a number of admins) also endorsed the idea of removing the third year from the term.
Its unclear who would need to take the lead in making this change, so I hope that Jimmy particularly is willing to weigh in on this question.
thank you,
Nathan