-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
DF wrote:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
There are a lot of current administrators that
I've either voted to
support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their
RfA that I
would never consider supporting in the position of
an arbitrator.
If I'd thought that one future day they'd get
handed the authority
to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can
(by blocking,
page locking, etc) it would certainly have been
less "no big deal"
and a lot more "let's screen these people very
carefully".
All right, then. How would you suggest we choose
them?
I also agree with what has been said by Turley and others. Arbitration is not something I would trust to every admin, and there are at least a couple admins that I would shudder to see given binding judicial powers.
How about a mixed system? First, have a Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is fixed in number and determined through an election process such as governs Arbcom now. And then have lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA now?
Sounds good to me. Maybe we should make the current Requests for arbitration into a supreme court, rename it. Then make the lesser courts be called Requests for arbitration. These would be seperated like page RFCs are. "Excessive reverters", "complete trolls", "POV pushers", etc. Then the supreme court (whatever it's called) could be appealed to like me do to Jimbo, and they could accept the case and look into it. There'd still be Jimbo above them, but hopefully less people would appeal to him. He's very busy, as we all know. Doesn't everyone in arbitration appeal to him currently?
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \ (Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)