In this circumstances, why don't we have a means for replacing arbitrators?
There's absolutely no reason why said arbitrator should be allowed to
continue serving - he wasn't elected, he's done basically nothing in
months, and he's been approached about the matter several times, with,
as far as I can see, no response. While we've just had elections, now
seems to me to be the perfect time to do something - there's a couple
of people who only missed out by one or two votes who would be quite
capable replacements.
-- ambi
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:43:40 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
Right, it isn't doing things poorly that is the
problem, but doing nothing
at all, but still filling the slot. So we wait and wait for someone who will
neither propose anything nor vote for or against others proposals.
Fred
From: Michael Snow
<wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:04:13 -0800
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
I think there is an
obvious problem when an arbitrator who has not really been active in the
process at all still has two years left to serve, and based on the past
year there is no reason to seriously expect this arbitrator to begin
participating. No experience is being gained by anyone that way.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l