Also posted on the wiki at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Dece…
Please direct comments there.
Several people have indicated that they dislike Jimbo's recent
intervention in the Arbitration Committee election process. Although the
alternative plan has not fully taken shape, I share some of the
concerns. For example, I don't think a situation where Jimbo appoints
the Arbitration Committee, and the election is simply to ratify these
appointments, is a good solution. However, I understand the concerns
about the community's ability to handle this on its own, based in part
on the last election. I think we need to find a reasonable compromise
position.
Meanwhile, the arbitration system itself continues to struggle. Too many
cases are going at once; the arbitrators cannot give them adequate
attention; the process moves too slowly. There are a number of other
problems, including arbitrator activity and burnout. I have a plan that
can address many of these issues. Here's my proposal.
Add a group of users called magistrates as a body below the Arbitration
Committee. The disputes that currently go into arbitration get handled
by smaller groups of magistrates and/or arbitrators, instead of going
before the full body. I would suggest that we keep the four votes to
accept a case rule, and simply make those four people the panel for that
case. The full Arbitration Committee can review specific cases when
appropriate, as a "court of appeal".
Magistrates are appointed directly by Jimbo. Since there is no fixed
number, the Arbitration Committee (or anyone else) can suggest names,
and people can volunteer directly to him.
While we get the magistrate system up and running, extend the
appointments of the arbitrators whose terms expire in December. Hold an
election in February (shortly after the next fundraising drive, which
should come in January) to fill these seats instead. The newly elected
arbitrators begin on March 1, which gives us time to observe the
magistrates in action, since I imagine a few of them would run for the
Arbitration Committee.
Arbitrators can be elected from the community at large, not just the
pool of magistrates. However, many of the best candidates will likely
have gained experience and proven their ability as magistrates beforehand.
Benefits of this system:
*The community gets to decide which of its members are on the main body,
which is in most cases the final port of call.
*New magistrates can be added at any time, without having to wait for an
election cycle.
*Magistrates are not chosen based on unsuitable criteria, such as
RfA-style "popularity contests".
*Elections to the Arbitration Committee should favor candidates who have
demonstrated ability (as well as approval from Jimbo).
*Magistrates who "lose" an election for arbitrator can still continue to
serve.
*Larger pool of people available for any given case.
*Number of magistrates can be scaled upward as community grows. (I think
we could start with around 20.)
*Decreases the workload for any individual arbitrator/magistrate.
*Reduce burnout accordingly.
*A panel can focus more attention on its specific case.
*Less overworked arbitrators/magistrates may also be able to resolve
cases more quickly.
*Since not everyone participates in a case, magistrates can voluntarily
avoid cases in which even a perception might exist that they have a
personal interest.
*In small panels, reaching any decision requires substantial agreement
(three out of four).
*Nevertheless, the Arbitration Committee can modify or reverse
problematic decisions from small panels.
*In cases before the full Arbitration Committee, members of the smaller
panel can organize and explain the often unwieldy evidence based on
their previous review.
*For all cases, the pool of magistrates not participating directly is
still available to handle housekeeping issues that are often neglected
currently.
For all these reasons and more, I hope we can move forward with this
proposal. I think this is the best way to balance Jimbo's input with the
need to develop responsible self-government by the community.
--Michael Snow