[Foundation-l] Meta-arbcom (was: the foundations of...)

[Milos Rancic]

On 1/5/08, FloNight <sydney.poore at 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.