| Revision as of 04:25, 2 January 2009 editBarberio (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,269 edits →Current amendment process← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:44, 5 January 2009 edit undoInkSplotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users821 edits An RFC isn't a policy change, and one man's crusade "stalling" isn't part of this policy.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ''There was at one point a proposal here; it is now at ].'' | ''There was at one point a proposal here; it is now at ].'' | ||
| Arbitration policy |
Arbitration policy is the jurisdiction of ] and the ]; see ''e.g.'' the ], which states that the "''Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things''". ] has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community. | ||
| ==Previous proposed amendments== | |||
| Several attempts have been made to instigate community interest in amendment of Arbitration policy; see ''e.g.'' | Several attempts have been made to instigate community interest in amendment of Arbitration policy; see ''e.g.'' | ||
| Line 9: | Line 7: | ||
| * ] which, despite its name, was not entirely the same as the original proposed amendment | * ] which, despite its name, was not entirely the same as the original proposed amendment | ||
| A restriction of one hundred community votes was implemented in both votes, but not met by either. | A restriction of one hundred community votes was implemented in both votes, but not met by either. | ||
| ==Current amendment process== | |||
| In 2008, a wide ranging ] was undertaken which resulted in a series of suggested policy changes. Some members of the community were developing a proposal to vote on ratifying these changes during the ]. | |||
| The 2008 process worked had worked as follows, | |||
| * A Request for Comments submitted to ], to discuss problems and propose solutions in the standard RfC manner of individuals making statements that others can list their support or opposition to. | |||
| * Consensus editing of a summary of the statements that had clear majority support by participants in the RfC, and production of actionable suggested policy changes as appropriate from those statements. | |||
| * Discussion of the submission of those policy changes to the community for ratification at the next round of Arbitration Committee Elections and/or other approaches, ongoing at ]. | |||
| * A request has been posted on ] to ask for guidance from the current Arbitration Committee as to how in their opinion the process of changing arbitration policy could develop. There is discussion to what extent the Committee's opinion on this is determinative. | |||
| Voting on these changes was postponed at the urging of the Arbitration Committee, in preference of allowing the committee to provide a new arbitration policy they felt would address concerns raised. However this was stalled as of January 2009. | |||
Revision as of 02:44, 5 January 2009
There was at one point a proposal here; it is now at /Old proposal.
Arbitration policy is the jurisdiction of Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee; see e.g. the arbitration policy ratification vote, which states that the "Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things". Jimbo Wales has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community.
Several attempts have been made to instigate community interest in amendment of Arbitration policy; see e.g.
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment and its failed ratification vote
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote which, despite its name, was not entirely the same as the original proposed amendment
A restriction of one hundred community votes was implemented in both votes, but not met by either.