[WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?

Wed Oct 5 16:45:12 UTC 2005

>
>  On 10/5/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at 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