I'll just quote the process of arbitration as you explained it, Jny, and add comments and thoughts to each aspect.
I think it's pretty complete, there are a few things I have trouble understanding at first glance, but nothing important, so, yes, I guess it's clear and people don't have to panic.
• A panel of three 'jurors' will be chosen by the posters who are involved in the dispute. [this # was suggested several times; preferred that posters get to pick their own jury]
Does that mean both conflicting parties have to agree on all three "jurors"? It should, but it might be difficult, I think.
• If one of the parties to the dispute is a current Administrator, then none of the jurors may be current administrators.
No objection, but I don't rightly understand the reason for that rule. If admins don't have any power, and aren't a group apart, as they are on TORC, for example, why can't they be on the jury in such a case?
• Once a panel of three 'jurors' has been selected, each poster involved in the dispute will present their position in a written email which all three jurors will read and then post simultaneously in a thread created for that purpose. [the rationale is to avoid a situation where one poster has unequal opportunity to respond to what the other poster(s) intially said]
I'm afraid I don't understand the rationale mentioned here - maybe it could be explained some other way?
As to "each poster writes one e-mail" - I think there's a problem if one poster is just better at bringing their point across than another one.
I don't have a better solution either, I just think that's a possible problem that should be mentioned.
• No one other than the posters and jurors may post in that thread unless requested by a juror to do so. Poachers will be deleted by the administrator overseeing the thread.[to avoid flamers and spammers in a process that should be taken seriously]
Good
• The posters and jurors may discuss the situation among themselves after the initial positions have been posted. In some cases, the jurors may call upon formal witnesses to post in the thread, and the posters may ask the jurors to call witnesses on their behalf. [so that relevant info can be obtained]
• Members with constructive suggestions who have not been called upon to post should email the 'jurors'. [so that good ideas can be heard]
Excellent, I think - this might be the solution to the problem I just mentioned, of someone not being able to present their case so well in a single e-mail.
• The 'jurors' will confer with one another, and may do their final deliberations by email rather than in public. [desire to give some discretion over privacy to the ‘jury’] The discussion and conference will not last longer than ten days.
Hmmh - I agree that jurors should have the possibility to confer in private, but I think that when the decision is published it should be said whether there were private conferences, and then explained (as a summary) what went on in them.
Not entirely sure if that's at all feasible, it's just that on the one hand I understand the need for private conference, but on the other hand I'm a little uncomfortable about that.
• When a decision is reached, the 'jurors' will email their decision to the parties involved in the dispute, and then post their decision in the thread twenty-four hours later. [members involved should not have to read it in the newspaper first] Each 'juror' may also express their own opinion in the matter, but the decision of the majority will hold. Posters will accept the decision of the 'jurors'.
• The thread will be locked, and may be deleted at the request of those involved.
Good
Still, this is all very theoretical. At the moment I can't imagine what kind of conflict we are talking about, and what kind of resolution and decision we are discussing here. I think that's important, because before we decide on a process that posters agree to abide by, we should have an idea of what consequences, for example, we are talking about here.