Whatever the name or the composition and size caps, there seems to be general agreement that the dispute resolution process needs to be expanded --most likely into a tiered system. This basic agreement needs to be validated by confirmations not just on this list, but by a site-wide vote using the vote machine.
While that gets in the works, I think its appropriate to formalize all the various proposals for how this expansion could or should work --such as Ryan's seniority-tiered idea or my notion of separating committees deal with reviewing policy from those dealing with conflicts of personality.
SV PS: I'd suggest even formalizing a process whereby the community (with a permissive wave of JW's scepter) can proceed with any use of the voting machine it feels is appropriate.
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
points of law rather than facts. It would be up to
the lower
ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of
irrelevant material
that is often raised.
Ec
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
Michael Snow wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current
size (or close to it)
and establish lower courts to filter off the
relatively easy stuff and
to organize the cases into a form so that when
they do appeal the
ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time
marshalling the case.
This is roughly what I suggested prior to the
election last year:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
We would simply need to figure out the number of
magistrates (my
term for the people on the next level down) and
how to select them.
--Michael Snow
I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)
Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said, this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.
Ryan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDRVzN6MKb8lYmCtcRAsfDAJ4wMmAYMqxLltYU7Mf7tAbYDQNTfACgnh8T
gGTIqpfvtsPIiD/vp4atReg= =4l65 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com