[WikiEN-l] Arbitration progress report #2

[Geoff Burling]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Martin Harper wrote:

> Dear all.
>
> We have a rough agenda:
>
> PRINCIPLES
> 1) "Jurisdiction" - what disputes do we plan to get involved in?
> 2) "Rules" - How do we judge cases
> 3) "Outcomes" - what solutions can we impose?
> 4) "Transparency" - issues of privacy, openness, accountability, etc
>
> PROCESS
> 1) "Requests" - how does one request arbitration?
> 2) "Who takes part?" - how do we pick arbitrators on a case?
> 3) "Trial" - How does the trial proceed?
> 4) "Judgement" - How do we give our judgement?
>
> We might add points to that as they come up. Currently we're largely
> discussing Jurisdiction, though we've also has some discussion about
> Requests and Transparency prompted by your comments here and elsewhere.
>
> A couple of current Jurisdiction issues:
>
> * What sorts of disputes should the arbitration committee hear? Article
> disputes?  Wikiquette disputes? Copyright/Legal/Election disputes?
>
> * Should we always require mediation, generally prefer mediation (with
> exceptions), or not require mediation?

My thoughts are that mediation should be the preferred first step. Disputes
should go to Arbitration if:
1. One or more of the parties involved are not following the terms they
 agreed to;
2. One or more of the parties involved refuse to agree to mediation; or
3. A matter of expediency, or specific kinds of issues (e.g., say 2 sysops
are having a reversion war over the Front Page -- a dispute I hope never to
see).
>
> Your thoughts and opinions are very welcome.
>
Geoff