We get to directly choose procedures and institutions, not outcomes. That's very important to understand. Outcomes are driven by procedures and institutions and sometimes in ways that are unexpected. I think that we have consensus about the kinds of outcomes that we want. We want procedures and institutions that are encouraging of good behaviors and discouraging of bad behaviors. We want procedures and institutions that prevent the rise of an ideological faction to control the content of the articles in any political/ideological way. We want procedures and institutions that are transparent, open, flexible, reasonable, and which have a minimum of gamesmanship. We want procedures and institutions that are scalable and that don't depend on me as a bottleneck. The trick is in figuring out what those institutions and procedures should be. This will be a trial and error process. I think that arbitration is working, but agree with those who point out that it isn't what many of us envisioned as arbitration. It's more of an independent judiciary panel deciding punishments on a case-by-case basis. I think that mediation has mixed success, but not because of the intentions or the people involved, but because we've made something of a structural error. Too many people aren't taking mediation seriously, preferring to go straight to arbitration. The fact that mediators can't really do anything other than talk sweetly is probably the main issue. I'm putting a lot of thought into these issues, and listening very carefully and seriously to what everyone is saying. I expect that we will be tweaking the system to a degree to try to alleviate some of the problems we've seen. --Jimbo