On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that
I've either voted to
support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their
RfA that I
would never consider supporting in the position of
an arbitrator.
If I'd thought that one future day they'd get
handed the authority
to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can
(by blocking,
page locking, etc) it would certainly have been
less "no big deal"
and a lot more "let's screen these people very
carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose
them?
I also agree with what has been said by Turley and others. Arbitration is not something I would trust to every admin, and there are at least a couple admins that I would shudder to see given binding judicial powers.
How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is fixed in number and determined through an election process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA now?
-DF
On 10/6/05, DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com wrote:
How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is fixed in number and determined through an election process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA now?
That approach seems the most reasonable one I've heard of yet. I would add the provision that the ArbCom (or whatever you call the highest level judicial body) has the authority to veto candidates for magistrates, and to dismiss those who prove unsuitable later on.
Kelly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
DF wrote:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that
I've either voted to
support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their
RfA that I
would never consider supporting in the position of
an arbitrator.
If I'd thought that one future day they'd get
handed the authority
to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can
(by blocking,
page locking, etc) it would certainly have been
less "no big deal"
and a lot more "let's screen these people very
carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose
them?
I also agree with what has been said by Turley and others. Arbitration is not something I would trust to every admin, and there are at least a couple admins that I would shudder to see given binding judicial powers.
How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is fixed in number and determined through an election process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA now?
Sounds good to me. Maybe we should make the current Requests for arbitration into a supreme court, rename it. Then make the lesser courts be called Requests for arbitration. These would be seperated like page RFCs are. "Excessive reverters", "complete trolls", "POV pushers", etc. Then the supreme court (whatever it's called) could be appealed to like me do to Jimbo, and they could accept the case and look into it. There'd still be Jimbo above them, but hopefully less people would appeal to him. He's very busy, as we all know. Doesn't everyone in arbitration appeal to him currently?
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)
I doubt they often bother.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/6/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
DF wrote:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that
I've either voted to
support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their
RfA that I
would never consider supporting in the position of
an arbitrator.
If I'd thought that one future day they'd get
handed the authority
to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can
(by blocking,
page locking, etc) it would certainly have been
less "no big deal"
and a lot more "let's screen these people very
carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose
them?
I also agree with what has been said by Turley and others. Arbitration is not something I would trust to every admin, and there are at least a couple admins that I would shudder to see given binding judicial powers.
How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is fixed in number and determined through an election process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA now?
Sounds good to me. Maybe we should make the current Requests for arbitration into a supreme court, rename it. Then make the lesser courts be called Requests for arbitration. These would be seperated like page RFCs are. "Excessive reverters", "complete trolls", "POV pushers", etc. Then the supreme court (whatever it's called) could be appealed to like me do to Jimbo, and they could accept the case and look into it. There'd still be Jimbo above them, but hopefully less people would appeal to him. He's very busy, as we all know. Doesn't everyone in arbitration appeal to him currently?
Phroziac | /"\
How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is fixed in number and determined through an election process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA now?
-DF
I'm not sure if a mixed system is the right way to go. Are there really people you would vote magistrates but not arbitrators? In addition, it would mean that we have to come up with a system in which there are rules as to what cases can be appealed, and what cases can't.
I am drawn towards a less hierarchical structure. If we could draft enough people in (and it should be easier if we can guarantee a lower work load) it might make sense to have several "courts" - new cases would be assigned to one of the courts (based on current load?) and arbitrators assigned to that court could then agree to hear or not hear a case. If too many had to recuse themselves, then the case could go to a different court.
The reason this appeals to me is the fact that people don't like having other people look over their shoulder. People brought before the magistrates are going to say "you can't judge me, I am appealing directly to the 'real' arbcomm" (like people now appeal to Jimbo). We should have a mechanism by which any individual arbitrator can review the decisions of another court, be privy to the discussions on the arb-listserv, can make comments in the workshop, but they would not be this hierarchy standing in judgement. Something like 3-5 co-equal courts, each with 8 members would probably be able to serve our needs. If there need to be more, then maybe we could add new courts, through new elections.
Ian
On 10/6/05, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if a mixed system is the right way to go. Are there really people you would vote magistrates but not arbitrators?
Yes. I have a number of people in mind who I think would make good magistrates but who I would not (yet) trust with the duties of Arbitrator. Also, magistrate is likely to be a more manageable load than Arbitrator, especially if we let people volunteer to work at controllable work load levels (i.e. let individual magistrates specify whether they are open to accept more cases or not; the ArbCom doesn't have that luxury). More people may be willing to make the commitment to be a magistrate (especially ) than the much greater commitment of an Arbitrator.
I am drawn towards a less hierarchical structure. If we could draft enough people in (and it should be easier if we can guarantee a lower work load) it might make sense to have several "courts" - new cases would be assigned to one of the courts (based on current load?) and arbitrators assigned to that court could then agree to hear or not hear a case. If too many had to recuse themselves, then the case could go to a different court.
This leads to venue-shopping, which I'd prefer to avoid, and to circuit conflict. I don't want to put Jimbo into the position of resolving conflicts between circuits of the ArbCom. If we did do circuits, to avoid this problem we'd have to allow appeal to the ArbCom en banc, which is likely to be a mess, especially with the proposal for 30 to 40 Arbitrators. I also doubt that we can find 40 competent and qualified Arbitrators who enjoy the support of a substantial portion of the community.
The reason this appeals to me is the fact that people don't like having other people look over their shoulder. People brought before the magistrates are going to say "you can't judge me, I am appealing directly to the 'real' arbcomm" (like people now appeal to Jimbo).
They will learn not to do that when the ArbCom summarily dismisses their appeals.
Kelly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
DF wrote:
How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is fixed in number and determined through an election process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA now?
Sounds good to me. I think we're getting to the point where we can think about starting to write a policy proposal.
- - Ryan