On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why not allow clerks to draft proposals? The arbitrators would still be the only ones allowed to -vote-, of course, but I see no harm in letting a clerk make a suggestion. If it's poor, it'll just get voted against anyway.
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course). Proposals from known sensible people are more likely to be taken notice of, of course.
Actually....
Thinking out to the legal system in the US, I wonder if this is a mistake.
In real courts we make Attorneys (or rarely, a defendant or plaintiff representing themselves) do the arguing and submitting of briefs and motions.
The Wikipedia analogy would be changing the system so that anyone who knows something can present evidence, but the proposals are limited to experts.
Experts could be "the parties, plus any administrator", or more open (some senior / experienced non-admins), or more restricted (only people "authorized by Arbcom" or some such).
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme, it effectively *requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
But it's an idea.