QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Fri 5th September 2008, 12:31pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 4th September 2008, 5:52pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(ThurstonHowell3rd @ Fri 5th September 2008, 12:06am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
New York Brad has objected on the grounds that shorting terms would be: "perceived infringements on judicial independence". ... well, of course, that is the reason for the proposed change. Rather than Arbcom being unanswerable, their actions should be supported by the community.
I anticipated and addressed this objection in my colloquy on-wiki with Everyking, q.v.
There would seem to be a conflict of interest for a sitting Arbcom member to be arguing against the reduction in his own term of service.
They can argue all they like - indeed its useful to know what they think in the matter. Its only a conflict of interest if they make the decision.