Actually, there are lots of possible task descriptions for meta arbcom as well. Some people want an arbcom to watch over the smaller projects. Some people (projects?) want a committee where they can go to if they do not like the result of the local arbcom. Some people want a committee that can tell them whether certain local policy is allowed and reasonable or not. And you can go on like that. I think that everything courts do in our societies could potentially be scaled to a meta arbcom. However, I am absolutely not confident that all tasks should be given to this meta arbcom. I think that the opinions differ very much about this subject.
BR, lodewijk
2008/1/4, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Sebastian Moleski wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 11:35 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
And I feel like suggesting that we should actually take the opportunity to create at the same time
- a wikicouncil parliament type and
- a meta arbcom
I think most of us can rather well imagine what the meta arbcom role will be; the difficulty will be to define working relationships with the various local arbcoms.
I actually have some trouble trying to imagine what the meta arbcom would do. Can you shed some light on that or refer me to related proposals on-wiki or elsewhere?
Thanks,
Sebastian
Okay. Essentially, we have a problem when a vandal or at least a problematic person, is active on several projects at the same time. Cross wiki fighting.
What happens is that the stewards are called to the rescue, and asked to make decisions, which sometimes are at arbitration level, or which may conflict with local policies. Officially, stewards are applicants. But sometimes, they have to run into decision making.
There has been an embryo of a proposal here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_committee
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l