--- Brian M brian1954@gmail.com wrote:
Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"? Why such complicated dispute resolution procedures? It is almost as if we want to make it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do if you are determined. What is the logic behind that?
One-size-fits-all solutions are rarely effective. The dispute resolution process is soft at first and then gets harsher and harsher as one moves through it. This gives people with good intentions plenty of time to reform before even the possibility of harsh sanctions are imposable.
Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be cooperating? Iron fist in the velvet glove. At present, in the case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.
I've already proposed that anything agreed to in mediation should be strictly enforceable. There was a good deal of support for that idea - but I have not had time to check back on the progress toward that (it could simply be done by fiat by the ArbCom, but gaining community support first is a good idea).
-- mav
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/