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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>