Template:CharterVote2/38/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

revise per Joe:

• An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:

1. one member nominated by the Editorial Council,
2. one member nominated by the Management Council, and
3. one member nominated by the Ombudsman.

D. Matt Innis 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree Russell D. Jones 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Joe Quick 18:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be provisions that three different persons are appointed by this procedure? --Daniel Mietchen 01:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On rereading, I think this has drifted. The Ombudsman, not a nominee, should preside with tie-breaking authority. Earlier versions had three MC and three EC members to have serious decision. I disagree with the current wording, and suggest:

• An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:

1. one member nominated by the Editorial Council,
2. one member nominated by the Management Council, and
3. the Ombudsman.

By agreement between the Councils, they may appoint equal numbers of members, up to three. No member may be nominated by both Councils; there will be two, four, or six members other than the Ombudsman.

Howard C. Berkowitz 01:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We need the Appeal board to be nimble. I know you weren't privy, but on the constable wiki, we had two appeals that took way too long as we waited for people to show up and read the info and make decisions. The more we have the longer the process will take. All the appeal board is doing is reviewing a decision that will have been made by a committee of 4 or 6 members for the EC or MC (depending on where it came from). That is where the real decisions are made. D. Matt Innis 17:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Making Om's participation optional (compromise) . Russell D. Jones 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:

1. one member nominated by the Editorial Council,
2. one member nominated by the Management Council, and
3. the Ombudsman or his/her designee.

Agree. Russell D. Jones 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we want nominated or appointed.

• An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:

1. one member appointed by the Editorial Council,
2. one member appointed by the Management Council, and
3. the Ombudsman or his/her designee.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 17:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Yes, they should be appointed. Russell D. Jones 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the role of the Appeals Board is not primarily to confirm already-made decisions, I just don't see two non-presiding people as sufficient to give a really new review. Do we really need this board? Are 1 from each Council enough if there is a question of overlapping jurisdictions? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, the Appeal Board's purpose is to review already-made decisions. D. Matt Innis 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree and recommend deleting the article and references to it; as described, I don't see it contributing a meaningful review. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the above. -Joe Quick 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)