On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 15:12, Fred Bauder wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <jheiskan@welho.com>
Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit
power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee. No coming
back to the Mediation Committee, and asking: "Did you *really* try
mediation already?" If the Mediation Committee *independently*
decides that Arbitration is the way to go, they can initiate it on
their own say so, without the Arbitration Committee
second guessing the Mediation Committee.
The arbitration committee's proposed rule include votes on acceptance of cases, including cases referred by the mediation committee. At least 4 arbitrators must accept jurisdiction. Now what happens to cases not accepted... depends on the nature of the problem. For example, the complaint that Anthony started a fork, likely to be not accepted because he broke no Wikipedia or indeed Wiki rule, nothing happens. Complaints considered too trivial, again nothing, but the parties might consider negotiation or mediation. Compaints that are too much for us to deal with would go to Jimbo.
Fred
Indeed. I am courteusly suggesting that you might review that rule,
with a mind to extending the role of the Mediation Comittee as a
body that can discern which cases do fall under the jurisdiction
of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not accept my original
suggestion (which I would regret, because I *did* think it through
*quite* thoroughly; do at least consider the possibility of having
an explicit bias for accepting cases referred by the Mediation
Committee, perhaps accepting them *unless* some Arbiter objects,
where-after it would then be subject to the ordinary "4 Arbiters
to accept" rule. Or if that too is unacceptable, maybe have a lower
threshold for acceptance. (Two arbiters enough to accept a case?)
What I see as a nightmare, is a situation where the Mediation
Committee decides that a case is not one of theirs, and says:
"Try arbitration!", whereupon the Arbitration Committee refuses
to take the case, but bounces it back to mediation. which then
decides that it is properly not a matter for mediation but in
actual fact a case for arbitration, etc., etc., etc...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen