Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
[Resent to d-project by Cord Beermann <firstname.lastname@example.org>]
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:37:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hey, why not? A third idea: instead of having delegates or a committee
> or whatever to decide amongst disputes, how about randomly selecting a
> jury from DDs and having their word (on who's right, on what punishment
> is plausible) be absolutely final, with no appeal, ever?
Well, this may work to a point, but in every justice, there is a phase
of presentation of evidence, of verification of that evidence, and a
phase where an amical resolution can be found.
I propose that a we create a debian-mediation private (same as
debian-private) mailing list, where those interested in mediations can
participate. This will also resolve the problem of issues going to other
random list and disturbing the traffic there.
Every social problem should be taken only to this list, and if someone
is seen as starting some elsewhere, he is gently remainded to go to
debian-mediation, and if he doesn't comply, the list-master take some
action (like a temporary ban, or a partial ban on a given thread, or a
plain redirection, including maybe a retroactive of moving the mail
archive to debian-mediation, or some incremental variation thereof).
This list will have a set of assigned mediator/moderators, who would
volunteer to help solve such issues, and each case, would get one person
responsible for it, who would act not as judge, but as moderator and to
make sure the issue would not degenerate or stall.
Then, once the mediation attempt has failed, it is time to go to a
judicial like sentencing, and there an random chosen set of DDs can be
used for the jury, with a mechanism like in real life court for each
party to reject a jury member who is known to be partial in the issue,
and provided the randomly selected list of jury members is really
But as for the "absolutely final, with no appeal, ever", the only way to
get a final resolution, is to have a fair resolution, because injustice
will always be contested, and breads only resentment and escalation, as
was the case here.