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

[Thomas Dalton]

On 07/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at 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.