On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:20, Anthere wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
Okay. I an committed. I will post this.
This was courageous.
I am glad you finally left your silence.
Thank you. I subtly dislike e-mail bc of its lack of immediacy; a
BulletinBoard would be much better.
The puppy has to catch the rabbit, or off to the
butchers with it!!
You do not even give time for the puppy to born...
I think you misunderstand me. What I wrote was quite confusing,
looking at it in hindsight. Allow me to clarify...
What I meant was that the whole mediation idea is very much on
a trial basis, and can be revoked by Jimbo if it does not pan
out. The fact that I _do_ think it will work, does not
remove the damoclean sword hanging over the institution.
And the conclusion I want to draw from that, is that we have to
make every effort to assure that it does not fail, but is such
a wonderful success that it need not, and indeed can not be
revoked. Every institution that fails its charter is a millstone
around the neck of further attempts at founding such at a later
time.
You made a great job on the meta pages. What changed between december
and january ? Are you just unhappy because the page about monitoring is
not something some of us seem to agree with ? Is that the problem ?
What is the problem ?
There is no problem. The silent observer bit was mostly to lend
an enchanced perception of legitimacy to the process, and though
extremely useful IMO, is _not_ at all crucial. Such a crucial thing
though would be who does the mediation and how they are selected to
do it, on which see below.
My latest bout of inactivity was brought on by a juxtaposition
of the server problems, and some personal matters which I will
not speak on publicly. The major part were the serverproblems,
which manifest themself in a much exacerbated form because of the
hardware configuration at my end (basically I have a too small box
to surf efficiently).
Uncle Ed; I personally do not trust, even though I
have seen
his actions and speech on this forum. To me he is much like
I see myself; an unsolved equation, maybe negative, maybe
positive, maybe the very zero point of the equation...
You do not see you in a very positive manner.
I try to be brutally honest with myself. BTW, let me emphasize that
I _don't_ mistrust my or Ed's ability to a good job as a mediator in
the cases for which we are suited but, merely, whether we can do so
always, and in every case. A big problem with the mediation process,
as it stands is that although those users who know the personalities
of the mediators, can choose their mediator accordingly, those who
do not (e.g. newcomers), are essentially buying a pig in a poke.
(This was a problem BTW, that the proposed silent observer institution
would have partially addresssed.)
The ideal situation would be such that we have a group of mediators
with which it would be possible to just draw lots for the mediation
assignment, and always come up with a winner. This means that the
question of who we have on the mediation committee is not totally
irrelevant.
Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about
contributing
in the meditiation group, if you were not a member of it!
PLEASE anthere, think long before getting offended by the
previous sentence! I think you can perform a valuable part
in forming the limitations of the mediation group, but I
honestly don't see that you can offer anything positive to
it's developement as a member of it.
I am currently failing to see how I could not be offended by this
statement, as you provide no justification for such a comment. In any
cases, you might have noticed that my name was not in the current list.
So, feel free to join if this is the main point stopping you.
If the developpement of such a project shall be impaired by my presence,
I will certainly stop participating in it. I think I gave my reasons for
participating to its development, and those who read them should
understand the limits it will inherently put.
Okay. In clarification, In _most_emphatically_ endorse your input
into the development of the mediation process, without which the
institution would be at an even more half-finished state than it is
currently. What I meant was just to express plainly that you should
not actually be chosen as an actual mediator in any disputes. The
justification for this is purely your command of english, and no
other factor.
Part of the problem here lies in the unfinished and unclear mandate
of the mediation & arbitration committees. Are they to be purely actors
in the process of wikipedia editing, or are they eventually to
develop organically into political bodies of their own right?
The matter of arbitrators being selected by a vote yearly, would
suggest that morphing into a political actor is not totally
untenable.
If the mediation committee changes into a political body whose function
is not solely to effect acts of mediation, your presence on it would be
most valuable, but I personally doubt whether it would be useful for it
to thus transform itself.
Did you read what I wrote ?
If so, what is the sense in what you write here ?
Honestly, I do not think you can make such statements without more
input. At least to me privately. I think that would be fair.
I hope the above clarifies my position slightly.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
I am sorry you feel so disinchanted
I am sorry if I left you with the impression that I am disenchanted.
This is not the case at all. Although the mediation & arbitration
process and institutions have had bit of a handbrake start, I am
sure the motor will start revving on all cylinders eventually.
With the greatest of respect; as always,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)