On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:22 AM, DF wrote:
Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool of
Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
some people had proposed (though one might have
trouble finding enough people to run).
The problem wouldn't be finding enough people to run. We had 34
people running last time. The problem would be that, if we had taken
30 arbitrators last time, we'd have six arbitrators who are under
various forms of arbcom parole, including one who is currently banned
for a year.
Best,
Phil Sandifer
Perhaps but if that looked like happening I suspect more would run.
--
geni