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

Thu Oct 6 20:10:26 UTC 2005

> How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court
> (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is
> fixed in number and determined through an election
> process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have
> lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a
> process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA
> now?
>
> -DF

I'm not sure if a mixed system is the right way to go. Are there really
people you would vote magistrates but not arbitrators? In addition, it would
mean that we have to come up with a system in which there are rules as to
what cases can be appealed, and what cases can't.

I am drawn towards a less hierarchical structure. If we could draft enough
people in (and it should be easier if we can guarantee a lower work load) it
might make sense to have several "courts" - new cases would be assigned to
one of the courts (based on current load?) and arbitrators assigned to that
court could then agree to hear or not hear a case. If too many had to recuse
themselves, then the case could go to a different court.

The reason this appeals to me is the fact that people don't like having
other people look over their shoulder. People brought before the magistrates
are going to say "you can't judge me, I am appealing directly to the 'real'
arbcomm" (like people now appeal to Jimbo). We should have a mechanism by
which any individual arbitrator can review the decisions of another court,
be privy to the discussions on the arb-listserv, can make comments in the
workshop, but they would not be this hierarchy standing in judgement.
Something like 3-5 co-equal courts, each with 8 members would probably be
able to serve our needs. If there need to be more, then maybe we could add
new courts, through new elections.

Ian