CZ Talk:Dispute Resolution: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis (maybe not editors) |
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:I think the idea of a Lead Workgroup Editor is important for streamlining decisions. I have to say, however, that when such people rule ''finally'' in their own areas of expertise, it can be hard for them to separate out their own biases. More often, it is likely to be an intelligent ''disinterested'' party who is most inclined to resolve neutrality issues. For example, if I were in a conflict about [[Bill Clinton]], I'd far-and-above take a Gareth Leng--a Scottish physiologist with a great handle on neutrality--over a person more closely situated to the topic by nationality and discipline. Perhaps the idea of Neutrality Editors is worth considering. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 15:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | :I think the idea of a Lead Workgroup Editor is important for streamlining decisions. I have to say, however, that when such people rule ''finally'' in their own areas of expertise, it can be hard for them to separate out their own biases. More often, it is likely to be an intelligent ''disinterested'' party who is most inclined to resolve neutrality issues. For example, if I were in a conflict about [[Bill Clinton]], I'd far-and-above take a Gareth Leng--a Scottish physiologist with a great handle on neutrality--over a person more closely situated to the topic by nationality and discipline. Perhaps the idea of Neutrality Editors is worth considering. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 15:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Since the workgroup lead is going to have a lot of administration type duties as well, maybe they don't have to be editors. We could use people that are trained and good at resolving these issues whether they are authors, editors, or CEOs. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 15:25, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | ::Since the workgroup lead is going to have a lot of administration type duties as well, maybe they don't have to be editors. We could use people that are trained and good at resolving these issues whether they are authors, editors, or CEOs. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 15:25, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::On Stephen's point, I agree absolutely. In my own work, it has been a great advantage to me to work on countries with which I have little personal connection, whereas people who are focused on their country of birth are not only narrow in experience,but also very narrow in perspective. ''Transferable skills'' is the key idea, I think. | |||
:::On Matt's idea, I think that ideally we need for workgroup lead people who are broadly-based in the area, are at least of the intellectual standard of editors, and have proven skills in management or dispute resolution. I fear that the combination is quite rare, though... Without the status of editor for workgroup leader, it is likely that the others would not respect the process and we could have real legitimacy problems.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 15:37, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 15:37, 29 August 2007
How's this looking so far?? --Larry Sanger 14:51, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- It looks good, although somewhat indigestible. As a guiding document it will be fine, but possibly we will need to split it up into sub-areas, just for people to get their heads around it.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:54, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- I think the idea of a Lead Workgroup Editor is important for streamlining decisions. I have to say, however, that when such people rule finally in their own areas of expertise, it can be hard for them to separate out their own biases. More often, it is likely to be an intelligent disinterested party who is most inclined to resolve neutrality issues. For example, if I were in a conflict about Bill Clinton, I'd far-and-above take a Gareth Leng--a Scottish physiologist with a great handle on neutrality--over a person more closely situated to the topic by nationality and discipline. Perhaps the idea of Neutrality Editors is worth considering. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- Since the workgroup lead is going to have a lot of administration type duties as well, maybe they don't have to be editors. We could use people that are trained and good at resolving these issues whether they are authors, editors, or CEOs. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:25, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- On Stephen's point, I agree absolutely. In my own work, it has been a great advantage to me to work on countries with which I have little personal connection, whereas people who are focused on their country of birth are not only narrow in experience,but also very narrow in perspective. Transferable skills is the key idea, I think.
- Since the workgroup lead is going to have a lot of administration type duties as well, maybe they don't have to be editors. We could use people that are trained and good at resolving these issues whether they are authors, editors, or CEOs. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:25, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- On Matt's idea, I think that ideally we need for workgroup lead people who are broadly-based in the area, are at least of the intellectual standard of editors, and have proven skills in management or dispute resolution. I fear that the combination is quite rare, though... Without the status of editor for workgroup leader, it is likely that the others would not respect the process and we could have real legitimacy problems.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:37, 29 August 2007 (CDT)