Wikipedia talk:Mid-term filling of open ArbCom positions

I remember reading the Wikipedia Signpost recently, discussing the mid-term resignations of members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It noted that there was no firm policy in place with regards to replacing them, and that nobody knew what to do. I also thought about Delirium, who stated their intention to resign when such a policy was in place. The goal of this page is to discuss this problem, and the course of action we should take to correct it. Naturally, the first question is: 'what is to be done?' To this question, I think all of us will answer 'we must set up a written policy.' Thus, we move on to the next question: 'what kind of policy should we have?' Some possibilities:

1. Jimbo appoints a replacement.
   • Advantage: quick response time (probably 3-5 days).
   • Disadvantage: puts the replacement in the hands of just one man. There's a reason why we hold elections for the ArbCom.
2. The remaining Arbitrator select someone to be a replacement.
   • Advantage: process doesn't revolve around one person, but still pretty quick (probably 3-7 days).
   • Disadvantage: oligarchical process without much community involvement. Again, Arbitrators are elected for a reason.
3. Appoint the runner-up in the most recent election.
   • Advantage: theoretically instantaneous, and the appointed Arbitrator has demonstrated support from the community.
   • Disadvantage: the base of community support may have disappeared. Also, they may have left the project or been disgraced in some way.
4. Jimbo appoints a replacement, but gets official input from the community.
   • Advantage: probably won't slow the process much, but allows the community to voice its opinion.
   • Disadvantage: it's still Jimbo's decision.
5. ArbCom appoints a replacement, but gets official input from the community.
   • Advantage: probably won't slow the process much, but allows the community to voice its opinion.
   • Disadvantage: it's still the ArbCom's decision.
6. New Arbitrator is elected directly in a special election.
   • Advantage: community voices its opinion directly.
   • Disadvantage: potentially time consuming.

Please not that I am not advocating any particular one of these systems; I'm just throwing them out for y'all to think over. If you have any other ideas, please post them. Also, please note that ideas that garner no support will probably not be considered as options for the final policy.

Some other points to think about:

• What should be the standard for the ratification of a new Arbitrator by the ArbCom?
• What process should be used in the special election for the new Arbitrator?
• How will we decide which policy is the final one?

Please add a new discussion heading when the next comment is posted. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 02:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)