[Cz-editcouncil] Reviving discussion

[Brian Long]

Hello all--

I have been working on drafting a resolution proposing the creation of a Judicial Board, but a number of questions have arisen in the process. Broadly speaking, I think the outlines of the Judicial Council in Larry's email "Toward CZ 2.0" (from forever ago) are actually very good. I have been attempting to hammer out some basic guidelines for the operation of a Judicial Board. 

I agree with Larry that I doubt a Judicial Board will solve all of our problems. I do think, though, that having a dispute resolution body and appeals process in place may help to defuse some of the situations that arise. A Judicial Board will also help convince contributors that we are committed to resolving problems in a thoughtful and deliberate way. I also agree with Larry that particular care needs to be taken to make sure that the Judicial Board does not have a negative effect on the community. I think the best way to assure this is to be very careful who ends up on the Judicial Board. I haven't come up with a really great idea for the selection process, but it seems clear that Judicial Board members need to have an excellent grasp of our policies, as well as an ability to clearly articulate and defend that understanding. 

Concerning your second point, Larry, I think we do need to work towards a policy on "to what extent and under what rules the Editor-in-Chief may (or even should) engage in content controversies, and according to what rules he may overrule decisions or undo work the work of subject editors." Larry, what are your instincts on these questions?

Back to the Judicial Board:

First off, I think a three-member Judicial Board is probably the best we can hope for at present. If and when the Citizendium becomes more active and we have more active editors, the Judicial Board should be increased to seven members. I think we should seriously consider allowing members of the Editorial Council to serve on the Judicial Board for the time being. 

Here is what I've got thus far for the Judicial Council resolution:

"In disputes over our stated policies, Citizendium needs “a decider,” a court of last resort for both editorial and behavioral issues. We have a number of different governance bodies, but none of them is well equipped to adjudicate policy issues. 

The Judicial Board will have the responsibility to consider our stated policies, past practice and the situation on the ground to decide whether a given contributor has acted in violation of our policies, whether a Constable or Editor has correctly applied the policies we already have, and whether we have a policy concerning a given issue at all. 

In situations where it is found that Citizendium does not have policy on a certain issue, it will not be the role of the Judicial Board to formulate new policy. A member of the Judicial Board may call for a vote on purview on grounds of a lack of policy, after which the Editorial Council may or may not take up the issue (the Editorial Council may also hold off from legislating on a given issue). The Judicial Board may also make a formal policy recommendation that the Editorial Council will take under advisement. 

The Judicial Board does have limited authority to help formulate policy in one specific case. Upon reflection, the Judicial Board may find that a given policy is unclear, and may recommend that the policy be rewritten so  contributors have a clearer sense of what the policy entails. Though they may help to articulate the policy, the Judicial Board shall not have a monopoly on reformulating policy (who will be allowed to help rewrite policy?). Reformulations of policy may be overruled by the Editor-In-Chief, and, as ever, policy may be rewritten by the Editorial Council."

Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns about the proposed Judicial Board. 

Thanks,
Brian Long

--- On Thu, 11/6/08, Larry Sanger <sanger at citizendium.org> wrote:

> From: Larry Sanger <sanger at citizendium.org>
> Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Resignation
> To: "'The Citizendium Editorial Council'" <cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 8:27 AM
> Does the Chair mean to say, perhaps, that he is asking
> whether there is any
> objection to the motion, and that it will be considered to
> be passed "by
> acclamation" if there is no objection?  If we are
> going to suspend normal
> rules for this mailing list, I request that we set a (if
> necessary
> extendable) ending date for suspended-rules period.  If we
> do not set an
> ending date, I will have an objection to the motion.  I
> won't object to the
> motion otherwise, but I can give you one good reason to
> object and to insist
> on holding any discussion on the forums: these are issues
> that deeply
> concern the whole community, and are not wholly in the
> purview of the
> Editorial Council.
>  
> John says, "mechanisms should be in place to
> intellectually resolve disputes
> over content without these sorts of problems causing
> resignations."  In my
> experience, when disputes cause resignation, they are not
> disputes over
> content, but instead over bad-behaving fellow contributors
> or over CZ
> policies.  Over the many months of this project's
> existence, we have in fact
> already proposed and discussed many dispute resolution
> mechanisms--I
> proposed several myself--and these have either been tried
> and rejected, or
> died in discussion due to lack of interest.  See e.g.,
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Dispute_Resolution 
> Discussion has
> generally taken place either in the Forums or among the
> Executive Committee.
> Currently, the Executive Committee has tentatively adopted
> a "moderator"
> system that was executed mainly by Gareth Leng, but his
> recent academic
> promotion and additional duties have cut into the time he
> has had to spend
> on CZ.
>  
> I want to emphasize how difficult the whole matter of
> dispute resolution is.
> In an open, largely flat project, it is very difficult
> indeed to legitimize
> and gain support for any community decision, and
> decision-making process,
> that will satisfy one party and overrule another.  This has
> an inherent
> tendency to create a hierarchy and, potentially, change the
> operation of the
> project fundamentally; I say that because the project works
> precisely
> because it is collaborative and largely free of top-down
> control (pace
> Martin in this case!).  I don't mean to discourage
> anyone from making
> proposals (or supporting those already proposed); I'm
> just trying to lay out
> some constraints.  As soon as such a process is officially
> installed, we can
> easily predict that power-hungry, controlling types will
> leap to participate
> as much as they can.  The more we anticipate and design to
> solve such
> problems, the better off we'll be in the long run.
>  
> As to purview, please see
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Rules_of_Procedure#Vote_
> on_the_issue_of_purview
>  
> and also 
>  
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editor_Policy#Editorial_Council
>  
> which explicitly lists editorial dispute resolution as in
> the Council's
> purview.  We have traditionally distinguished between
> "editorial" dispute
> resolution and "behavioral" dispute resolution,
> although obviously there
> must be great overlap, if the distinction is not completely
> incoherent.
>  
> More than anything, I feel, we need some understanding of
> the basic
> requirements and constraints of such a resolution process. 
> I've made a
> number of stabs at this in the Forums, but I doubt I ever
> got to the bottom
> of it.
>  
> Of course, you might say that there is a more tractable
> issue we can take up
> that is related to Martin's complaint.  (I am informed
> that Martin is off
> the list now, by the way.)  Namely, to what extent and
> under what rules the
> Editor-in-Chief may (or even should) engage in content
> controversies, and
> according to what rules he may overrule decisions or undo
> work the work of
> subject editors.  I would be happy to work with both the
> Editorial Council
> and the Executive Committee to clarify such fundamental
> matters; they are, I
> admit, rather vague at present.
>  
> --Larry
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org
> [mailto:cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org] On
> Behalf Of Dr.Supten
> Sarbadhikari
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:11 AM
> To: The Citizendium Editorial Council
> Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Resignation
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> The issues in question are numerous.
> 1. Suspension of the normal rules of the Editorial Council
> mailing list. 
> 2. Formation of the Judicial Board.
> 3. Installation of a Secretary to carry out the regular
> administrative
> activities of the EC.
> 
> For the first issue, as John has already seconded Brian, I
> agree to suspend
> the normal rules and allow for discussions related to the
> way ahead.
> However, I'd be mostly traveling on duty from Saturday
> Nov 08 to Thursday
> Nov 13, and will not be having regular access to the
> Internet.
> 
> Regarding the second issue, whether the EC can pass a
> Resolution for the
> setting up of the Judicial Board or not has to be decided.
> The Executive
> Committee, The Constabulary, The Editorial Council and the
> proposed Judicial
> Boards are supposed to be independent of each other!
> 
> To me, the third issue is the most burning one and I again
> request that any
> of the EC members may volunteer or nominate another member
> for the post of
> Secretary. The candidate is expected to be familiar with
> the Rules of
> Procedure and the trivial housekeeping activities. The
> Rules of Procedure
> can be found at: 
> 
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Rules_of_Procedure
> 
> 
> Additional information can be obtained from:
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Resolution_0007
> I'd be happy to clarify any other doubts or queries
> that you may have.
> 
> 
> Please send me the consent/nominations privately at
> supten at gmail.com within
> eight days, i.e., latest by Friday November 14, 2008, 03:30
> hrs. UTC.
> 
> With warmest regards
> 
> Supten
> The Chair, CZ EC
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:34 PM, John R Moffett
> <drjohn at factinista.org>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> I would second the motion if put forward. I would also
> concur that
> mechanisms should be in place to intellectually resolve
> disputes over
> content without these sorts of problems causing
> resignations.
> 
> John Moffett
> USUHS
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cz-editcouncil mailing list
> Cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org
> http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-editcouncil