Hoi, If you allow for this you will not get proper policies. When you deal with problematic issues, when you may create precedents you do NOT want an informal group of people. You want some even handed people well versed with what the WMF stands for (this in marked contrast with what a particular project stands for). The notion that someone has to be "an admin on at least one [nottiny] project, say)" is not that relevant, what is relevant is that they have the authority to insist on getting attention from the parties involved. Dependent on necessity, they either get the board or the directors approval for the implementation of what is decided.
So it very much needs to be a formal issue. It has to be clear that invoking the meta-arbitration is not without consequences.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 7, 2008 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
(BTW, I realized now that we need firstly Meta Mediation Committee and only after making such body we should make ArbCom.)
A meta-mediation committee is a good idea. It doesn't need to be done formally, it can just be a page on meta listing people willing to help mediate disputes and what languages they speak. Some mention of their qualifications might also be good. It shouldn't be an elected committee (not worth the hassle), but it might possibly need some restriction on who can join (must be an admin on at least one [not tiny] project, say).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l