The Mediation Committee cant be called "a failure"
because it wasnt built to work in a manner that can be
verified in terms of its overall success. "Success" in
mediation often means getting over one hump, only to
find another two weeks later. Successful mediations
are often comparable to watching a "molasses ko",
while unsuccessful mediations at least progress from
chaos to
arbcom. MC views werent meant to be binding, hence RFM
wasnt actually designed to "work."
SV
--- Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I ment that the mediation commitee has generally
been a failure, and
its method of determining membgership has been a key
factor in that
failure. Recently one or 2 members hjave taken an
interest in things
and some improvement has occured, but they are
'''FAR''' from an
example to be emulating.
Jack (Sam Spade)
The current mediation process doesn't work
very
well, for exactly
those reasons, and should not be used an an
example of what to do w
the ArbCom. They are making changes and
improvements, but it is
despite, rather than because of their selection
process, that it is
occuring.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Can you clarify what you mean, Sam Spade? Thanks.
Flcelloguy
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005