On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Martin Harper wrote:
Dear all.
We have a rough agenda:
PRINCIPLES
- "Jurisdiction" - what disputes do we plan to get involved in?
- "Rules" - How do we judge cases
- "Outcomes" - what solutions can we impose?
- "Transparency" - issues of privacy, openness, accountability, etc
PROCESS
- "Requests" - how does one request arbitration?
- "Who takes part?" - how do we pick arbitrators on a case?
- "Trial" - How does the trial proceed?
- "Judgement" - How do we give our judgement?
We might add points to that as they come up. Currently we're largely discussing Jurisdiction, though we've also has some discussion about Requests and Transparency prompted by your comments here and elsewhere.
A couple of current Jurisdiction issues:
- What sorts of disputes should the arbitration committee hear? Article
disputes? Wikiquette disputes? Copyright/Legal/Election disputes?
- Should we always require mediation, generally prefer mediation (with
exceptions), or not require mediation?
My thoughts are that mediation should be the preferred first step. Disputes should go to Arbitration if: 1. One or more of the parties involved are not following the terms they agreed to; 2. One or more of the parties involved refuse to agree to mediation; or 3. A matter of expediency, or specific kinds of issues (e.g., say 2 sysops are having a reversion war over the Front Page -- a dispute I hope never to see).
Your thoughts and opinions are very welcome.
Geoff