steve v wrote:
WP:MC was originally built in as an afterthought to the AC, and to assert a finer difference, some strict bounds were implemented, because 1) it was thought that mediators should be prevented from becoming like the Arbcom, and 2) so that somehow through strict WMIN (~WWIN) definitions, its role would be more defined and sensible. IMHO whats happened is that its generally been a bit confused. MC was defined relative to AC, but without a clear vision to what MC could do that would persist through WPs since quadrupling in size and users. Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged down with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now experimentally being torched BTW), the result has been a bit disorganized, and slow.
This is a very distorted history of the mediation committee. The original committee was created at the same time as the arbitration committee, and we decided on our rules and procedures independently. One of the decisions we made was that each mediation would be carried out independently and confidentially by a single mediator. This had two negative effects: the mediator did not have the support needed to perform this difficult role, and any successes (and despite what has been said there /were/ some successes) became invisible.
It's easy enough to burn out on the arbitration committee, where problems can be talked through with the rest of the team - it's even easier on the mediation committee where each mediator works alone.
Snowspinner's idea of a more open version of mediation is one I support fully.
--sannse