On 10/5/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
That's a good point, we don't want to increase the ArbCom to the point
where we'd have to take anyone that applies. Perhaps we could set a cutoff
so only candidates who received at least X% approval are eligible for
serving on the ArbCom. For example, in the December 2004 election, Theresa
Knott had the highest, at 51%. The other candidates elected to the ArbCom in
December 2004 were:
Raul654 - 42%
Ambi - 39%
Sannse - 36%
Neutrality - 33%
David Gerard - 32%
Grunt - 31%
If we set a cutoff of 20%, also elected in December 2004 would have been:
Fennec -31%
Mirv - 31%
Cecropia - 31%
James F. - 30%
Ed Poor - 28%
Hephaestos - 27%
Charles Matthews - 25%
172 - 24%
The Cunctator - 24%
Overall, that's still a pretty strong group of candidates. It's only when
you start dipping below 20% and especially below 10% that some candidates
would face opposition (I'm not going to name any names).
We could state that the top N candidates will be elected to the ArbCom,
provided they receive at least X% support. The values of N and X would need
to be discussed and/or simply decided by Jimbo. If fewer than N candidates
have X% support, the ArbCom is smaller than desired, but would almost
certainly be larger than its current size.
Carbonite