Erik Moeller wrote:
This whole mediation/arbitration distinction seems
fallacious to me. Alas,
we're in this mess now, and it is unlikely to be fixed.
I don't know, I'm up for radical change if the current system is not
working out.
The big problem I see right now is that too many people say "forget
mediation, I want to go straight to arbitration". So the mediation
step is slighted. And people aren't just being annoying when they do
that, it's that by the time it gets to formal "mediation", things are
so bad that only "arbitration" is possible.
The Mav/168 situation strikes me as being like that. Here we have two
valued contributors arguing endlessly about something that outside
parties see as entirely pointless (the wording of the introductory
paragraph of [[DNA]], where there's nothing transparently wrong about
either alternative, and it seems impossible that there could be no
compromise).
They want to go to arbitration over it.
--Jimbo