Template:CharterVote2/39/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
Matt, I'm going to write a version that doesn't agree with your comments. Russell D. Jones 14:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Appeals Board shall render a final judgment in the case. No further appeals shall be possible.

I agree with this version by Russell. --Daniel Mietchen 23:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Russell D. Jones 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Russell, for me to agree to your version, you'll need to convince me that three hand picked people won't be making every decision. D. Matt Innis 00:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Successful Appeals will be allowed to re-enter the Management Council dispute resolution process, limiting the discourse to the new information or addressing the impact of the technical error in the previous procedure.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the way courts do it. The appeals court just decides whether the the previous court made a mistake. The members don't need the expertise to decide the actual case. The case should be retried in the Council that the Ombudsman feels has jurisdiction over the dispute. D. Matt Innis 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think sending the case back to the MC probably won't change the MC's judgment. We're dealing with volunteers who have no commitment to the judicial profession so have no reason to be fair and impartial on a re-hearing, and just may be pissed enough to not hear it or to reject it in spite. Also, the MC won't be elected to be the judicial board, but to be the managerial board, hearing disputes is their sideline (or am I not thinking of this the same way as you?). Where's the MC's incentive to render fair hearing? And if a grievant doesn't get it the second time around, shall we allow a third appeal? Also, we'll have to rely on the Appeals Board to be firm: if the appeal doesn't merit an appeal because there's no new evidence or no violation of due process, they'll have to say so. Just because a grievant demands an appeal shouldn't mean they automatically get one. Russell D. Jones 01:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We're also dealing here with an administrative court model, not a jury model. So, a judge in a jury case just has to make sure that due process is followed, the jury renders the decision. Here, the MC is both the judge and the jury. Russell D. Jones 01:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The MC is just commissioned to develop a dispute resolution mechanism - not be it. That system should be separate from either Council. If I were developing a mechanism, I would not allow the same group of people to hear the case the second time around. The appeals board is small and agile with three members and should be able to make a decision in a matter of days if the appellant has done all the leg work. All they have to say is, "Yes, that is new information that wasn't considered before." Or "No, that's the same argument made before." They don't have to have any expertise about the subject. They just send it back. I don't think that we want to have a permanent decision, because knowledge changes. The key is that the appellant has to prove to the appeal board that it is new information or someone made a mistake.

If we let the Appeals committee make the decision, that means they have to not only hear the new information, but they have to hear the whole case again. What's the difference? In my formulation, the Appeal board just acts as the filter that keeps us from wasting time by stopping people from making the same argument. D. Matt Innis 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In practical terms, the appeals board will read the whole case anyway, so it's not going to be a rehearing. Yes, let's hear the new evidence; Yes, show us the procedural mistake. Re: sending it back, this article is proposing to send it to the MC. If the MC is not the dispute resolution body, then it's a third level of appeal. I'm going to have to review the MC part. I'll comment more in a sec. Russell D. Jones 01:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

<undent>Okay, if we're going to go down this road of "Article III", then we should give the MC the full power to decide the judiciary branch of Citizendium. Your proposal proposes sending the appeal to the MC; but what if the MC has created a judiciary of which they are not a part? Your proposal places the MC as the Supreme Court, not as a lower court. So, the MC will have to review the case, more or less rehearing it. If the MC is to "provide a formal mechanism of resolution" then that should mean the appeal process also. Russell D. Jones 02:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree! A formal mechanism of resolution includes more than dispute resolution as well. Larry mentioned it in his note as well; to call blocking a user a "dispute resolution" is not right. The MC is going to have to come up with something to handle all challenges. A judicial would be a great start! Or should we do it in the charter? "The Citizendium shall have a judicial system developed and maintained by the Management Council that will be responsible for... " D. Matt Innis 02:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a great start Matt. For me, it's time for a glass of wine, bed, and a book. I'm in no mood right now to re-create a judiciary tonight. Russell D. Jones 02:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it, too. Maybe others have suggestions as well. D. Matt Innis 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Revised Appeals suggestion: Russell D. Jones 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Successful Appeals will be allowed to re-enter the Management Council dispute resolution process, limiting the discourse to the new information or addressing the impact of the technical error in the previous procedure.

• An Appeals Board may render one of three decisions: It may decide that the disputant does not have new information or that the adjudicating council made no technical error and deny a re-hearing; it may affirm the adjudicating council's decision, in spite of new information or technical error; or it may recognize that new information, a technical error, or both has placed the adjudicating council's decision in error and remand the case to the adjudicating council for rehearing. If the case has been remanded for re-hearing, it is expected that the adjudicating council revise its judgment in light of the appeal.

Agree Russell D. Jones 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Great work. D. Matt Innis 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree (and added a comma). --Daniel Mietchen 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. -Joe Quick 15:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)