Why couldnt the stewards serve as the basis of this meta-arbcom. They were elected, and they represent diverse projects.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Having a blend might work best. Keep some connection to the local community as well as meta.
Maybe the steward members would be permanent and the ArbCom members would serve as a pool that could be called to work on a particular case.
I think we can think creatively to come up with a formula that best serves the needs of the Foundation and the Community.
Sydney
On Jan 4, 2008 6:08 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Why couldnt the stewards serve as the basis of this meta-arbcom. They were elected, and they represent diverse projects.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The only issue is that most of all of the projects /lack/ an arbcom or oversight body, sans administrators. Saying "ArbCom will serve as the body" is basically saying "let the main projects lead." Not the best idea, IMHO. Two two positions should be mutually exclusive. Although one might serve in both capacities, they do so as two different things, not as "ArbCom on MetaCom."
Just my 0.02USD.
Chad
On Jan 4, 2008 6:21 PM, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Having a blend might work best. Keep some connection to the local community as well as meta.
Maybe the steward members would be permanent and the ArbCom members would serve as a pool that could be called to work on a particular case.
I think we can think creatively to come up with a formula that best serves the needs of the Foundation and the Community.
Sydney
On Jan 4, 2008 6:08 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Why couldnt the stewards serve as the basis of this meta-arbcom. They were elected, and they represent diverse projects.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Cross posting from the "old" discussion by Hillgentleman:
I have a question:
There exists mechanisms that deal with the problems that the arbitration committee may face. Anybody can request for comments, or even more informally, start a page on meta and invite discussions.
Meta-arbitration is an interesting concept. But it has inherent un-wikiness. As it has potential influence wider than that of the stewards, and even close to that of the trustees, its legitimacy should be proportional or related to participation.
I have two basic questions. 1. Would this meta-arbitration committee's jurisdiction cover a project which had decided not to participate?
2. Would the meta-arbitration committee accept a case *within* one project brought on by someone who has hardly participate in that project, or otherwise clearly is not a community member?
Best, H.
2008/1/5, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
The only issue is that most of all of the projects /lack/ an arbcom or oversight body, sans administrators. Saying "ArbCom will serve as the body" is basically saying "let the main projects lead." Not the best idea, IMHO. Two two positions should be mutually exclusive. Although one might serve in both capacities, they do so as two different things, not as "ArbCom on MetaCom."
Just my 0.02USD.
Chad
On Jan 4, 2008 6:21 PM, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Having a blend might work best. Keep some connection to the local community as well as meta.
Maybe the steward members would be permanent and the ArbCom members would serve as a pool that could be called to work on a particular case.
I think we can think creatively to come up with a formula that best serves the needs of the Foundation and the Community.
Sydney
On Jan 4, 2008 6:08 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Why couldnt the stewards serve as the basis of this meta-arbcom. They were elected, and they represent diverse projects.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A major disadvantage there is the fact that none of the stewards have been elected because of their skills as potential arbitrators - as far as I can see, these tasks are very different, so a good steward might well be a crappy arbitrator. (But then again, one would of course be willing to arbitrate, and to be willing one should have some - at least perceived - skill, so this problem could solve itself.)
2008/1/5, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com:
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Having a blend might work best. Keep some connection to the local community as well as meta.
Maybe the steward members would be permanent and the ArbCom members would serve as a pool that could be called to work on a particular case.
I think we can think creatively to come up with a formula that best serves the needs of the Foundation and the Community.
Sydney
On Jan 4, 2008 6:08 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Why couldnt the stewards serve as the basis of this meta-arbcom. They were elected, and they represent diverse projects.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And besides that, it might make people want to get steward just to get on that arbcom... I thikn these two should certainly not be automaticly merged. Stewards should not "as a steward" become a member, but could get elected, just like every other community member imho.
2008/1/5, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com:
A major disadvantage there is the fact that none of the stewards have been elected because of their skills as potential arbitrators - as far as I can see, these tasks are very different, so a good steward might well be a crappy arbitrator. (But then again, one would of course be willing to arbitrate, and to be willing one should have some - at least perceived - skill, so this problem could solve itself.)
2008/1/5, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com:
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Having a blend might work best. Keep some connection to the local community as well as meta.
Maybe the steward members would be permanent and the ArbCom members would serve as a pool that could be called to work on a particular case.
I think we can think creatively to come up with a formula that best serves the needs of the Foundation and the Community.
Sydney
On Jan 4, 2008 6:08 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Why couldnt the stewards serve as the basis of this meta-arbcom. They were elected, and they represent diverse projects.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
My point for saying that stewards would not be well suited to meta-AC is exactly what Jon articulated. Stewards aren't selected for the skillset that Arbitrators will need.
Regarding the expert evidence workaround to ArbCom - I think the language barrier is a unique issue, perhaps only faced by administrative law justices in immigration courts (At least in the US). Even technical expertise barriers can typically be bridged using laymans terms, and infrequently will something be so obscure that a non-expert couldn't even begin to investigate intelligently. This wouldn't be the case - AC members would need to rely completely on the translation of someone not on the Committee (frequently, anyway), and this person would more than likely participate in the projects associated with that language - thus presenting the problem of finding someone who is both uninvolved and fluent.
When I wrote that it seemed unnecessary to create a new election procedure, what I meant was that if we use the ArbCom's that we already have and empower them to select representatives to the meta-AC then you already 1) giving direct control to the projects over the selection of meta-AC members and 2) you avoid setting up a new (and difficult) cross-wiki election procedure.
Nathan
On Jan 4, 2008 6:21 PM, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Having a blend might work best. Keep some connection to the local community as well as meta.
So many communities don't have arbcoms to begin with. Commons is a big project and doesnt have one, en.wikibooks doesnt have one, etc. Saying that existing local arbcoms should have something to do with a global arbcom is short-sighted.
What makes better sense is to have projects appoint representatives. For small projects this can take the form of elections or whatever. For larger projects where elections don't make sense, you can have the policy be that the representative is selected from the current arbcom. Require representation from all projects, but allow the projects to determine on their own how to elect the representatives.
Maybe the steward members would be permanent and the ArbCom members would serve as a pool that could be called to work on a particular case.
Minus the mention of arbcom members here, it's actually a decent idea. The stewards could form a core group, since they are already elected globally and do much of this work already, and additional members (especially speaking members of particular languages) could be selected from projects to aid in particular cases.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 1/5/08, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of a combination of stewards and members from elected ArbComs.
Maybe someone else mentioned it before. I am at the first fifth of the thread...
(As a steward) I don't think that stewards should have any connections with judicial functions. Stewards are executors (let's say, like FBI) and giving them possibility to make decisions over disputes clearly makes SuperWikimedian group of people.
Also, while I really think that a lot of stewards are able to make good decisions over disputes, in choosing the main factor is not a quality of such decisions, but a quality in imposing the rules.
Another problem is the process of electing stewards and removing their rights. While it is completely acceptable that stewards don't need reelection, but only confirmation -- Meta ArbCom members has to be reelected. Life-long (or practically life-long) position of a judge may be acceptable only in a well developed societies and WM society is not well developed; as well as it needs a process of education in law.
By giving to stewards a new role, we would make a retroactive rule: all people who are chosen for one role are getting another another, qualitatively different role.
The point is that this is a really bad idea. There are many of structural problems made by giving to stewards judicial role.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org