This is the current revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 13 January 2025 (→Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators: edit addition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 22:45, 13 January 2025 by L235 (talk | contribs) (→Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators: edit addition)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
- Good! I'm glad that you did this. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as this one by Daniel, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (
Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters
), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (