Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004

message: People have raised concerns about providing enough time for candidates to sign up and for people to study the issues and vote. At the same time, we need to get the election done quickly so the new arbitrators can start work. Right now, no dates have actually been set, and I think that needs to be agreed on quickly.
Suggestions above range from one week to two weeks, both for the candidate registration period and the election itself. I would say that it's pretty clear that Jimbo's idea on the mailing list of 2-3 days won't fly. But unlike the board election, this one doesn't require a translation process or Foundation-wide publicity. So about ten days seems like it should be adequate. That would let us complete the process by the middle of August, which is about as long as I think we can afford to drag this out.
So, my specific suggestion is as follows - since Jimbo endorsed the proposed election late on Friday, July 23, use midnight UTC that evening as the starting point. The rest of the timeline could be:
*Candidate registration closes at midnight UTC on Monday, August 2 (10 days from start)
*Election opens on Wednesday, August 4 (everybody seems to like having one day where the candidate pool is set before the election actually starts)
*Election closes at midnight UTC on Friday, August 13 (10 days from when it opens)
*As soon as possible thereafter, election results are published and new arbitrators join the committee
Any objections to this timeline? If not, I plan to put this on the page soon, so we have something concrete to work with. --Michael Snow 18:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BAN IT! BAN IT! Er, sounds good to me! - David Gerard 21:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Huh? Ambivalenthysteria 04:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand either. Eloquence refused the appointment and has never voted, and UninvitedCompany left/resigned pretty early in the committee's existence. The vacancies have been around for a long time. I would be happy with fewer non-votes too, but we don't have a clear method of removing arbitrators who underparticipate. Though if any of them feel they can't devote the time necessary, they are welcome to resign, and we could have this election cover any additional vacancies as well. --Michael Snow 16:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline issues 

message: I'm curious.  Will those who are elected now be able to run for re-election in December 2004?  I can't tell from the wording on the main page.
Thanks,
Acegikmo1 22:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict!  Thanks for fixing it.  Acegikmo1 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Eligibility for re-election

message: I think the 3 months requirement for voting is an excellent one.  I also think it needs questioning slightly.  Can anyone tell me whether the 3 months is calculated from the 3rd, the 4th, the 13th, or some other date in August?  What of a user who has switched usernames, or who has sought attribution of anonymous edits (but not yet gotten it)?  I just want to make sure we have clear guidelines.  Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A definition of 3 months