A couple of current Jurisdiction issues:
- What sorts of disputes should the arbitration committee hear? Article disputes?
Wikiquette disputes? Copyright/Legal/Election disputes?
I prefer a narrow jurisdiction: I don't want to be asked to decide if Usama bin Laden is a terrorist, or even if DNA is a nucleic acid. Rudeness isn't a crime and I don't think our time should be wasted with "mommy, he called me a Nazi!" or even "mommy, he called himself a Nazi!" whin(g)ing. I can see us arbiting non-obvious copyright and legal questions, but if by "election disputes" you mean "mommy, he voted twice!" I feel that the person who set up the election needs to resolve any conflicts.
- Should we always require mediation, generally prefer mediation (with exceptions),
or not require mediation?
I prefer flexibility; ie, prefer mediation but allow exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
Unless that's a typo. I think that even if we don't now, we soon will require medication.