On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:20, Anthere wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit: 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. 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). 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. 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. 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)