Ah yes, let's have a jury system. Except that nobody can be compelled to serve (what would we do? desysop someone? block them from adding content?), and the [type of] people most likely to volunteer are...well, arbcom. Or the arbcom candidates whom the community had already rejected.
Please no more speaking of juries. I've been on juries, and I've been on Arbcom. I can guarantee you that juries are absolutely no better, and are even less likely to look at evidence than arbcom is. I don't think Arbcom is wonderful; I think this year's arbcom has lost its way in a manner that I can't recall seeing since 2007-08. But I have zero faith that, on a website where better than 70% of active contributors never take part in the "meta" part of the site, that "jury duty" would do anything positive. I do, however, believe it would have a negative impact on retaining active contributors who have no taste for the drama. Risker On 22 October 2015 at 16:10, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < [email protected]> wrote: > > >We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee > could require that certain >committee members not participate. > > How about *anyone*? (As I think your next comment seems to realize) > > >We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury > system, instead of one fixed >committee, with limited challenges permitted. > Peremptory? Or not? > > Daniel Case > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
