[WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?

[steve v]

Whatever the name or the composition and size caps,
there seems to be general agreement that the dispute
resolution process needs to be expanded --most likely
into a tiered system. This basic agreement needs to be
validated by confirmations not just on this list, but
by a site-wide vote using the vote machine.

While that gets in the works, I think its appropriate
to formalize all the various proposals for how this
expansion could or should work --such as Ryan's
seniority-tiered idea or my notion of separating
committees deal with reviewing policy from those
dealing with conflicts of personality.

SV
PS: I'd suggest even formalizing a process whereby the
community (with a permissive wave of JW's scepter) can
proceed with any use of the voting machine it feels is
appropriate.

--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>  
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> 
> > points of law rather than facts. It would be up to
> the lower
> > ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of
> irrelevant material
> > that is often raised.
> >
> > Ec
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you
> are trying to say.
> 
> Michael Snow wrote:
> 
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> >> I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current
> size (or close to it)
> >> and establish lower courts to filter off the
> relatively easy stuff and
> >> to organize the cases into a form so that when
> they do appeal the
> >> ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time
> marshalling the case.
> >>
> >>
> > This is roughly what I suggested prior to the
> election last year:
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
> > We would simply need to figure out the number of
> magistrates (my
> > term for the people on the next level down) and
> how to select them.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> 
> I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and
> everyone on what is
> now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the
> language isn't all
> that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed
> through, they can
> call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned.
> :-)
> 
> Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of
> letting this be any
> administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA
> actions pending
> against him) who volunteers for the job. Like
> Michael Turley said,
> this wouldn't be a job that most people find
> appealing. It would be
> thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't
> even have the
> satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at
> the end.
> 
> Ryan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>  
>
iD8DBQFDRVzN6MKb8lYmCtcRAsfDAJ4wMmAYMqxLltYU7Mf7tAbYDQNTfACgnh8T
> gGTIqpfvtsPIiD/vp4atReg=
> =4l65
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com