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

Mon Jan 7 13:41:21 UTC 2008

On 1/5/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but on projects
> which are too small to have an arbcom.
> 2) The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but when they affect
> multiple projects.
> 3) Issues with projects as a whole.

I think that all of the cases are important, but all of them have
different implications...

1a. Some projects don't want to have ArbComs. In this case, only
general functioning of the project may be a matter of Meta ArbCom. In
that case we need some kind of Meta Mediation Committee which would
help to such projects. (BTW, I realized now that we need firstly Meta
Mediation Committee and only after making such body we should make
ArbCom.)

1b. Again, disputes on small projects without ArbCom should go firstly
to the Mediation Committee.

1c. All Wikimedia-wide bodies have to have a lot of members.

2a. Almost the same as for 1.

2b. Cases may be extremely complex. I am really curious to see the
third dispute over some Balkan dispute (the first two will be
warm-upping) and how Meta ArbCom would solve it.

2c. Again, Mediation Committee is much better idea here. At least for
the beginning.

3. Yes, we need to see do we have some problematic projects and how to
solve problems there. However, out of NPOV and other non-negotiable
things, Meta ArbCom shouldn't have jurisdiction. And, again, Mediation
Committee should be used firstly.