[WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

Mon Mar 7 22:26:55 UTC 2005

--- Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"?   Why such complicated
> dispute resolution procedures?    It is almost as if we want to make
> it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do
> if you are determined.   What is the logic behind that?

One-size-fits-all solutions are rarely effective. The dispute resolution
process is soft at first and then gets harsher and harsher as one moves through
it. This gives people with good intentions plenty of time to reform before even
the possibility of harsh sanctions are imposable. 

> Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator
> seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready
> means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be
> cooperating?     Iron fist in the velvet glove.   At present, in the
> case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith
> difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through
> to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.

I've already proposed that anything agreed to in mediation should be strictly
enforceable. There was a good deal of support for that idea - but I have not
had time to check back on the progress toward that (it could simply be done by
fiat by the ArbCom, but gaining community support first is a good idea).

-- mav 

__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/