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(a)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(a)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