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

Thu Oct 6 17:20:13 UTC 2005

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower
> ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material
> that is often raised.
>
> Ec

I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.

Michael Snow wrote:

> Kelly Martin wrote:
>
>> I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it)
>> and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and
>> to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the
>> ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
>>
>>
> This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
> We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my
> term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
>
> --Michael Snow

I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is
now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all
that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can
call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)

Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any
administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending
against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said,
this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be
thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the
satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.

Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRVzN6MKb8lYmCtcRAsfDAJ4wMmAYMqxLltYU7Mf7tAbYDQNTfACgnh8T
gGTIqpfvtsPIiD/vp4atReg=
=4l65
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----