[Foundation-l] Meta-arbcom (was: the foundations of...)

[Nathan]

Well, I suppose the role of the ArbCom would have to be determined
before its membership rules are outlined. I think the value of
expertise (which you dismissed) is quite high - unlike stewards,
ArbCom's are chosen with the community judgment of their ability in
case resolution implicit. But you're right - if the meta ArbCom is
going to be a venue for appeal (which I would advocate against) then
it would be difficult to select meta-AC members from local-AC pools -
difficult, but not impossible with a diverse gruop and a policy of
recusal.

In general principle, why should we invent a new election process for
this role when election processes for similar roles already exist and
can be done in a decentralized fashion for maximum general
participation?

Finally, regarding languages. I think it is obvious that the lingua
franca of meta-AC deliberations must be English. However, if all cases
are to be filed in English this raises a very serious issue of
disenfranchising local projects with only a small number of English
speakers. On the other hand, if cases can be filed in native languages
this again raises a very serious issue - that of the inability of AC
members to read the statements, an inability to verify evidence and an
inability to conduct an investigation of any kind. Any meta-AC is
going to encounter issues with evidence, investigation and appeals
written in non-English languages.

Based on the language issue alone, I would argue that to forestall
these many difficult issues the scope of the meta-AC should be limited
very narrowly and only expanded over time in areas of clear need. An
initial jurisdiction could be defined as conflicts involving
violations of core WMF policies by projects, conflicts between
projects and varying interpretations of core WMF policies by local
ArbComs (similar, in some ways, to the original jurisdiction of the US
Supreme Court).

Nathan