On 07/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I wasn't talking about meta-arbitration, I was talking about meta-mediation. A meta-arbcom (which, incidentally, is a bad name - what the enwiki Arbcom, for example, does is not arbitration, it's enforcement of policy, arbitration does not involve imposing decisions) needs to be a formal body, meta-mediation does not. Mediation is just meant to help the parties come to a mutual agreement, it doesn't impose solutions. A good mediator doesn't need to be an expert on policy and able to work out the solution to a problem, just just need to be good at getting people talking so they can come up with their own solution. If they fail, then that's the time to go to a formal arbcom.