Theresa Knott wrote:
I agree. I came to the AC after it was formed and
it's way of working
was set. But personally i hate the jargon and the quasilegalistic way
of working. I would like to go to the people concerned and ask
questions "Why did you remove that chunk of text" "Do you regret
calling him a shithead and have you said or done anything by way of an
aplogy" "If you had to to it again, would you have handled it
differently?" that sort of thing. I'd like things to be far more
informal than they are at the moment, but i don't know how the
community feel about that, and i don't want to break a process, that
basically works (even though it has its faults)
Isn't this why mediation and arbitration were planned as separate
procedures. Mediation should do what you suggest. When a dispute is
begun by someone intent on applying some kind of punishment the idea of
finding a negotiated settlement on the article content has been pretty
well abandoned. Refusal to co-operate with mediation should be used
against a participant who wants to go immediately to arbitration.
Ec