On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 15:12, Fred Bauder wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee. No coming back to the Mediation Committee, and asking: "Did you *really* try mediation already?" If the Mediation Committee *independently* decides that Arbitration is the way to go, they can initiate it on their own say so, without the Arbitration Committee second guessing the Mediation Committee.
The arbitration committee's proposed rule include votes on acceptance of cases, including cases referred by the mediation committee. At least 4 arbitrators must accept jurisdiction. Now what happens to cases not accepted... depends on the nature of the problem. For example, the complaint that Anthony started a fork, likely to be not accepted because he broke no Wikipedia or indeed Wiki rule, nothing happens. Complaints considered too trivial, again nothing, but the parties might consider negotiation or mediation. Compaints that are too much for us to deal with would go to Jimbo.
Fred
Indeed. I am courteusly suggesting that you might review that rule, with a mind to extending the role of the Mediation Comittee as a body that can discern which cases do fall under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not accept my original suggestion (which I would regret, because I *did* think it through *quite* thoroughly; do at least consider the possibility of having an explicit bias for accepting cases referred by the Mediation Committee, perhaps accepting them *unless* some Arbiter objects, where-after it would then be subject to the ordinary "4 Arbiters to accept" rule. Or if that too is unacceptable, maybe have a lower threshold for acceptance. (Two arbiters enough to accept a case?)
What I see as a nightmare, is a situation where the Mediation Committee decides that a case is not one of theirs, and says: "Try arbitration!", whereupon the Arbitration Committee refuses to take the case, but bounces it back to mediation. which then decides that it is properly not a matter for mediation but in actual fact a case for arbitration, etc., etc., etc...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen