Sorry I'm late again!
Welcome back, Wilko. I am really glad you've agreed to participate in this (quite apart from the guinea-pig aspect
)
That said, I don't see where that is supposed to take place (I currently only see 3 Convention threads and a Sticky in the Jury room ?). In the meantime, I will just say that I seem to cause even more trouble here when I'm not online than when I am, which I have to apologise for.
My apologies if I’ve confused you Wilko. I was waiting to hear back from you, as to whether you’d be willing to take this to the arbitration process, before I set up a thread in the Jury Room. I’ve now heard back from everyone concerned and am working on getting this rolling shortly; I’m just waiting for the other admins to agree with the jury selection before I can ask if they’re willing.
I would urge you to keep an eye on your private messaging here on the board; the admin email account is a pain and a half to access from work for both Griff and I. One of us (probably me, with my control-freak tendencies
)will let you know when the thread is up.
I was going to explain more, but I see that Jny has beat me to it a page or so back!
I understand from the sticky thread that the membership have to approve the jurors as well? Can I take it that if I leave the names up for three days and there's no dissent then we can run with it. Speaking personally, I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with any of the individuals put forward.
I really like the idea of the individuals involved in a dispute being able to suggest jury members and for the admins to be expected to pick three people from that group where possible. It suggest to me a group of people coming to the table as equals to work something out.