On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 20:39, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands
in practice:
*The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip.
*Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only
once successfully.
*Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the
disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration.
(This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not
disclose)
*Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped
even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of
grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
Where do we go from here?
Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that this how it was always
going to go, no matter what we might have wished. Reality is a harsh
mistress.
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee
into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename
the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it
live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly
don't know! Anything the current "socalled" Arbitration Committee can
bear to part with...
J-V Heiskanen (Formerly Cimon Avaro on a pogostick - RIP)
I think these remarks are insightful. It is true that as it is
shaping up, the arbitration committee doesn't really do arbitration as
people commonly understand that word. And people have come to view
mediation as something to do for a few days, more or less meaningless.
(BTW. You do realize that you were top-posting, and according to a
different thread, should be blocked from editing Wikipedia ;^)
More seriously, I fully stand behind my evaluation of where we are
presently, but stepping back have come to realize that my proposed
remedy was (besides inchoate) too enthusiastic. IMO the Mediation
Committee can not *yet* handle supra-administratorial powers, even
minor ones. Not as it is currently constituted. Some work toward
finding a general Modus Operandi for its internal functions needs
to be covered first.
But one thing that (with courtesy and good will) *could* be sorted
out *right now* is the relation between the Mediation Committee and
the Arbitration Committee.
In my view, what we do *not* want is a situation in which communication
between the committees resembles a conflation of Marx Brothers, Abbott
and Costello and Franz Kafka. I *do* hope we are all agreed on that!
I know this may be a point of contention with the Arbitration
Committee, but I cannot honestly see how they can reasonably oppose
the following suggestion:
Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit
power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee. No coming
back to the Mediation Committee, and asking: "Did you *really* try
mediation already?" If the Mediation Committee *independently*
decides that Arbitration is the way to go, they can initiate it on
their own say so, without the Arbitration Committee second
guessing the Mediation Committee.
This would confer an implicit power on the Mediation Committee,
which does not include sanction, but would be a sufficient power
to perhaps make the disputants take mediation slightly more
seriously. Very small changes in perception, can have major effect
on the process.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen