Draft Ombuddy process - please read and comment

[Octavia]

Thanks to RBH for knocking this up and doing all the re-writes. Please feel free to comment, question, or suggest changes. Once we have a consensus, it'll go in the TH sticky with the rest of the community stuff. :)


The Role of Ombudsman

The role of Ombudsman at Talk Rational! is to provide assistance in resolving disputes between staff and posters or among staff in circumstances where normal conflict resolution has not worked.

The Ombudsman is concerned with the process by which staff decisions are made about matters in the Staff Phorum and in Active Reports. The Ombudsman has access to both forums at need, but does not participate in discussions -- the Ombudsman is not part of "staff" and has access only in an observer role except as noted below.

The focus of the Ombudsman is on process. That is, the Ombudsman's task is to ensure that staff have followed procedures that are fair to users and other staff and that are consistent with the Moderator Guidelines. The Ombudsman does not re-make staff decisions or second guess the substance of decisions.

The Ombudsman is not an advocate for one or the other side in a dispute. The Ombudsman gathers information, encourages discussion, and in an instance where necessary, initiates public discussion of a contentious issue.

The Ombudsman's first duty is to review the appropriate materials in the Staff Phorum, to which he or she is given read-only access. Then, if the Ombudsman deems it appropriate, in a sub-forum open to staff, the Ombudsman, and the complainant, the Ombudsman initiates a discussion of the procedural issues associated with the event. Staff, Ombudsman, and the complainant participate in that discussion.

If the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the complaint is appropriately resolved in that private forum, then a thread in Town Hall may be initiated to discuss the matter. Again, only staff, the Ombudsman, and the complainant post in that thread, though a tightly moderated peanut gallery thread may be started.

Selection Procedure

The position of Ombudsman is a temporary one, with an Ombudsman chosen for each instance requiring mediation. The Ombudsman for a given complaint/instance is selected in a multi-stage process.

First, the affected member posts a request for an Ombudsman to mediate a matter in Town Hall. Other members of TR post in that thread only to register agreement; if within 48 hours 2.5% of the current active membership or 20 members, whichever is larger, concur with the request, then the process proceeds to nominating candidates.

Second, candidates are offered. Anyone except the complainant and current staff may be nominated, and self-nominations are appropriate. The Administrators by a majority vote may veto any nominations from trolls or those known to have relevant axes to grind. Nominations are open for 48 hours.

Third, the Ombudsman is elected in the following manner. The names of the candidates are listed in a multi-choice poll. We emphasise that people should vote for all candidates they approve of rather than just voting for their favourite candidate. Voting is open for 48 hours. The candidate with the most votes is the Ombudsman for that instance, and remains until the situation is resolved.

OK. Just to make it clear why it's a temporary position: some people have made the point that a permanent Ombuddy may get too "close" to the staff to function effectively. Making the Ombuddy a temporary position that can be called or filled anytime by anybody, we hope to avoid this perception of bias.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It is just going to get filled by the same people. If you wanted it to be real, you would pick someone that isn't in your inner circle for it. It is just going to be a circle jerk.

[Octavia]

We don't pick them - perhaps you missed the voting details. You pick them - you and your fellow members. There are plenty of people about who could be voted in and who have the integrity not kowtow to staff because of some personal desire to be part of the "inner circle".

[Pavlov's Dog]

We don't pick them - perhaps you missed the voting details. You pick them - you and your fellow members.

I noticed the voting details. "We" isn't just the staff.

[Octavia]

Given that your response was directed at staff (not picking someone in "your inner circle") I answered in the same vein.

The staff do not pick the ombudsman. The staff can vote like any other member of TR, but it is the community as a whole who picks them - whether they are perceived to be "inner circle" or not.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Given that your response was directed at staff (not picking someone in "your inner circle") I answered in the same vein.

It wasn't directed at staff. As, I said, the inner circle does not just include staff.

[Notta_skeptic]

Maybe the Ombudsman should come from someone who has never engaged the complainant in a thread? Or who comes from a pool of "neutral" observers? Rather than being appointed at large by the TR community.

[deadman_932]

Given that your response was directed at staff (not picking someone in "your inner circle") I answered in the same vein.

It wasn't directed at staff. As, I said, the inner circle does not just include staff.

?? I'm not clear on this...are you suggesting the inner circle is simply the majority of users or the largest voting bloc? People who vote in a U.S. president or governor or mayor are part of an "inner circle" no matter what?

[Hedwig]

Given that your response was directed at staff (not picking someone in "your inner circle") I answered in the same vein.

It wasn't directed at staff. As, I said, the inner circle does not just include staff.

What constitutes being in an inner circle?

[deadman_932]

What constitutes being in an inner circle?
You need a secret handshake, whatever it is.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Someone who would rubber stamp everything the staff does. Not that anybody here cares about what I think, because I am obviously the minority here and not well liked, but here is my list of people who are trustworthy and honest enough to not be push overs for the staff:

Nialler
Matt
Preno

That is just off the top of my head. I am not friends with any of these people. I would even say that some of them don't like me, and all of them disagree with a lot of what I do. But still they have integrity and they try to be honest. Unlike some of the current staff members.

But if the same people are voted to be ombudsman, then there is no point really. If everything is just done by the majority, then that leaves little place for minority opinions. If that is what you want, a rule by majority, then there is no point even having an ombudsman.

[deadman_932]

A rule by majority? Heavens!

If you didn't LIKE the majority status quo and wanted to create a majority, in that case, you could do so by reasoned persuasion and simply being/nominating a better candidate.

The alternatives are what? No ombudsman at all?

[Pavlov's Dog]

The alternatives are what? No ombudsman at all?

Yes. There is no point if they are just going to be rubber stamps for the staff.

Honestly, this is all unnecessarily complicated. The staff is just going to do as they want. There is no need for an ombudsman. If they want to ban a user then that is their call. If they want to do it in secret, then that is their call. I am not going to shut up about it, but so far it looks like the rest of the members don't really care about this that much. So, no need to make it needlessly complicated because a guy that you are about to ban is complaining.

[deadman_932]

That's when you vote with your feet. Or, alternatively, by doing what I just suggested above.

Edit : another alternative might be that you recruit enough numbers of like-minded people that you've previously persuaded and see what happens. If they don't get themselves banned and can prove to be viable members of a non-anarchistic group, that is.

[deadman_932]

If they want to do it in secret, then that is their call. I am not going to shut up about it, but so far it looks like the rest of the members don't really care about this that much.Well, I've been calling exactly for that transparency and I'm sure I can persuade others of the utility of such things.

[Octavia]

The alternatives are what? No ombudsman at all?

Yes. There is no point if they are just going to be rubber stamps for the staff.


Why are you so convinced that they would be? You've named three people who you would trust that I would vote for - and I'd be voting for them because I agree with your assessment of them.

[Pavlov's Dog]

The alternatives are what? No ombudsman at all?

Yes. There is no point if they are just going to be rubber stamps for the staff.


Why are you so convinced that they would be? You've named three people who you would trust that I would vote for - and I'd be voting for them because I agree with your assessment of them.

The fact that staff can vote is a problem. You guys make up a majority of the truly active posters on this site.

[deadman_932]

"Active" posters?... But not all posters. And who says the staff is all of one hive-mind? I think I recognize some...Octavia is one...that will not be swayed by mere numbers.

[Pavlov's Dog]

"Active" posters?... But not all posters. And who says the staff is all of one hive-mind? I think I recognize some...Octavia is one...that will not be swayed by mere numbers.

Well if posters aren't coming around here, then they probably aren't going to be voting. I have seen this staff rally around each other already. Sorry, I am a skeptic.

[deadman_932]

I'm a skeptic as well, and I don't follow the ideas of others unless they can damn well persuade me with valid reasoning -- that's why I still post at IIDB regardless ...and Dawkins', though I was suspended twice there. And I didn't follow along with the migration to RnR. There's different ways of handling things and I'm going to try the best I can to see if this can work. If not, it's certainly no skin off my ass. I don't owe anyone a damn thing online. There's enough posters registered right now to make a non-staff majority, anyway. My amusement at this time is to see what happens.

One thing I DO know is that it's far easier to burn a house than build one, and I'm interested in building something meaningful and useful, if possible. If not, I can find another lot.

[Octavia]

I'd be willing to look at disallowing staff votes - but then the vote would probably have to be public, so people can see with their own two eyes that staff aren't voting.

I'd prefer voting be private, though.

[deadman_932]

In the case of an ombudsman, that might be the best solution, really. That would ...restrain calls of stacking the deck or the ombudsman being influenced, say for a potential moderator spot in the future or whatever fantasy is dreamed up

[deadman_932]

I consider a lot of this to be like what we see in many governments already. We've seen the idealism of the early US corrupted by internal (say, the CIA/FBI) and external power (corporations ). Finding an impartial arbitrator is interesting in many states today. The best solution may be taking any hint of potential influence out of the mix as much as possible.

[ravenscape]

Someone who would rubber stamp everything the staff does. Not that anybody here cares about what I think, because I am obviously the minority here and not well liked, but here is my list of people who are trustworthy and honest enough to not be push overs for the staff:

Nialler
Matt
Preno

That is just off the top of my head. I am not friends with any of these people. I would even say that some of them don't like me, and all of them disagree with a lot of what I do. But still they have integrity and they try to be honest. Unlike some of the current staff members.

But if the same people are voted to be ombudsman, then there is no point really. If everything is just done by the majority, then that leaves little place for minority opinions. If that is what you want, a rule by majority, then there is no point even having an ombudsman.

I would have added Rigorist to that list.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Someone who would rubber stamp everything the staff does. Not that anybody here cares about what I think, because I am obviously the minority here and not well liked, but here is my list of people who are trustworthy and honest enough to not be push overs for the staff:

Nialler
Matt
Preno

That is just off the top of my head. I am not friends with any of these people. I would even say that some of them don't like me, and all of them disagree with a lot of what I do. But still they have integrity and they try to be honest. Unlike some of the current staff members.

But if the same people are voted to be ombudsman, then there is no point really. If everything is just done by the majority, then that leaves little place for minority opinions. If that is what you want, a rule by majority, then there is no point even having an ombudsman.

I would have added Rigorist to that list.

I would add rigorist to that list as well.

But I don't even care anymore. Do what you want. I will just bow out before there is more calling me a rabble rouser, or trouble maker, or (in the words of your kind) a gibbering jackanape.

[deadman_932]

Ah. Well, that's too bad, really. I think you and others did a fine job of pointing out some problems with RnR and have been useful here (at least from my perspective of trying to push for transparency). But you'd probably have to adopt a different tack, so it may be just not in your character. Anger is useful, though -- I like restrained anger, and frankly you could have stomped on some issues you brought up. Either way, I think you clearly made some valid points.

[Jet Black]

Yes. There is no point if they are just going to be rubber stamps for the staff.


Why are you so convinced that they would be? You've named three people who you would trust that I would vote for - and I'd be voting for them because I agree with your assessment of them.

The fact that staff can vote is a problem. You guys make up a majority of the truly active posters on this site.

perhaps, but then it's worth noting that if you do get someone as ombudsman who is just there to rubber stamp things, then it would be blindingly obvious by the mere fact of who they are, and that would render the whole purpose of the ombudsman meaningless.

It does raise the point though that should the staff really have a say in who is going to be watching them? There will probably be a final agreement or disagreement by the admins as a protective measure against invasion and block votes, but I am inclined to not letting the staff choose who the ombudsman is.

[umop apisdn w,I]

It does raise the point though that should the staff really have a say in who is going to be watching them? There will probably be a final agreement or disagreement by the admins as a protective measure against invasion and block votes, but I am inclined to not letting the staff choose who the ombudsman is.

The staff shouldn't get to pick candidates or have any vote over and above the fact that they are also members.

However, just as the whole point of having an ombudsman voted for by the members is in order to make sure it is someone neutral rather than someone biased towards staff, the staff should have the power of veto over nominations for the same reason - to make sure it is someone neutral rather than someone who is known to have an axe to grind and to be heavily biased against staff.

After all, neutrality and impartiality is a two-way street.

[Jet Black]

true, that's why the admins (or perhaps all the staff) would get to say no to a particular applicant. The problem is if the staff get to vote on the support side, is that it would mean they get votes both times effectively giving them double the vote - first of all waight up the candidates they like, and in the event that they don't like the winning candidates, then get rid of them in favour of their weighted candidates.

in any case, the prime job of the ombudsman is to make sure the staff are held accountable and to maintain a reasonable level of openness to the membership who cannot see the staff fora. All staff can see the staff fora, and so there is no reason for the staff to be concerned about this. If the staff have a problem, then that's what the whistleblower policy is for.

[Christina]

I don't think that the staff should vote on the Ombudsman, especially since we have the right to veto. There's enough of us to swing a close vote and I think that we should stay out of it. If people would rather keep their votes private, maybe it could go into a temporary subforum that mods don't have posting rights in.

[RexT]

Christina,

You make a good point about there being enough of us to swing a close vote. I think I agree that staff should not vote in the general election for the Ombudsman. Or we could take (say) the top three elected by the general members, and then the staff could vote to accept one of those three. All in public of course.

[dug_down_deep]

Yeah, staff should not be voting on the Ombudsman. That seems like a given to me.

[deadman_932]

I understand Dean's point, and I recognize it as a valid concern should the forum become...out of control, overrun by troglodytes. This is certainly possible, given the numbers of troglodytes in the world. However, at this early stage of the game my general feeling is that I'm not sure that giving any hint of insider influence is good. The members I've seen posting thus far don't appear to be hairy-eyed molotov-flingers and so can likely be trusted not to select one. I know I wouldn't vote for one.

My general feeling is also that I wish much of this had all been worked out prior to staff being placed, but that finding a balance may mean the staff placing themselves in a weaker position than non-staff members.

Okay. We need ombudsmen to negotiate/mediate disputes. It seems a fair part of the larger frame of checks and blances of power. So...how are they selected -- we have a couple of potential pathways thus far:

1. General vote by all members (including staff) on candidates nominated.

2. General vote on candidates by non-staff members only.

I don't want to suggest more at the moment, but certainly there should be more discussion and ideas. Can some folks brainstorm alternatives?

[Garnet]

Here's a thought. Why not have a group of members that could be voted on right now that could act as ombudsmen and then rotate them as the need arises?

The only thing that PD has said that I agree with today is who he recommended. Add rigs too.

See if they're ready to serve, get some more nominations maybe. Elect a pool of say 3 or 4. That way, we have people, who have been agreed upon ready to go at need.

[David B]

Here's a thought. Why not have a group of members that could be voted on right now that could act as ombudsmen and then rotate them as the need arises?

The only thing that PD has said that I agree with today is who he recommended. Add rigs too.

See if they're ready to serve, get some more nominations maybe. Elect a pool of say 3 or 4. That way, we have people, who have been agreed upon ready to go at need.

I agree.

David B

[RBH]

Here's a thought. Why not have a group of members that could be voted on right now that could act as ombudsmen and then rotate them as the need arises?

The only thing that PD has said that I agree with today is who he recommended. Add rigs too.

See if they're ready to serve, get some more nominations maybe. Elect a pool of say 3 or 4. That way, we have people, who have been agreed upon ready to go at need.If I understand this, what that would produce is a sort of "ready reserve" of ombuddies, and should the need arise for one, the complainant selects one of them to serve in the instance under appeal. When that selection is made, that ombuddy is given access to the relevant material (if it's not already public) and does his/her thing. Am I understanding this right?

[ravenscape]

Here's a thought. Why not have a group of members that could be voted on right now that could act as ombudsmen and then rotate them as the need arises?

The only thing that PD has said that I agree with today is who he recommended. Add rigs too.

See if they're ready to serve, get some more nominations maybe. Elect a pool of say 3 or 4. That way, we have people, who have been agreed upon ready to go at need.
I would add lao tsu, for pretty much the same reasons I have for suggesting rigs.

Not everyone will have the same wants or needs when it comes to selecting an ombudsman. As long as the person who is in the market for an ombudsman can select someone they trust from a diverse pool this should work. More diversity is all the better.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I would add lao tsu, for pretty much the same reasons I have for suggesting rigs.

lao tzu is incredibly biased and <removed insult>.

[ravenscape]

I would add lao tsu, for pretty much the same reasons I have for suggesting rigs.

lao tzu is incredibly biased and <insult removed>.
If that's your view, then he's probably not someone you'd select then. Others might, though.

[Octavia]

The idea of having a pool of ready-made ombuddys is interesting. I have a couple of questions, though:

1) Would they stay in place for the forseeable future, being replaced as needed, or would there be new elections (for example) every year?

2) Would all ombuddys have access to the staff forum all the time? Because that may lead us back to the problem of "they're too close to be unbiased!". If they don't have all the time access, but just are called upon when needed (say, Bob the poster wants an ombuddy to look into his case, and picks the one he feels most comfortable in from the pool) - is that the suggestion?

[RBH]

The idea of having a pool of ready-made ombuddys is interesting. I have a couple of questions, though:

2) Would all ombuddys have access to the staff forum all the time? Because that may lead us back to the problem of "they're too close to be unbiased!". If they don't have all the time access, but just are called upon when needed (say, Bob the poster wants an ombuddy to look into his case, and picks the one he feels most comfortable in from the pool) - is that the suggestion?I' myself would say the latter, for the reason you suggest. I've not thought about your first question.

[Jet Black]

Here's a thought. Why not have a group of members that could be voted on right now that could act as ombudsmen and then rotate them as the need arises?

The only thing that PD has said that I agree with today is who he recommended. Add rigs too.

See if they're ready to serve, get some more nominations maybe. Elect a pool of say 3 or 4. That way, we have people, who have been agreed upon ready to go at need.If I understand this, what that would produce is a sort of "ready reserve" of ombuddies, and should the need arise for one, the complainant selects one of them to serve in the instance under appeal. When that selection is made, that ombuddy is given access to the relevant material (if it's not already public) and does his/her thing. Am I understanding this right?

I'm not sure I like the idea of someone being able to pick which ombudsman (if we have more than one running) they want, since it could overload one with work and also people pick their mate, or whatever. If we do have a group, I'd prefer the selection were random.

[Rathpig]

The best way to avoid an accusation of "they're too close to be unbiased!" is to avoid having a secretive oligarchy in the first place. Avoid having anything to get too close to being biased.

But I fight authority and authority always wins. So grains of salt and does eat oats and mares eat oats........

[Octavia]

I'm not sure I like the idea of someone being able to pick which ombudsman (if we have more than one running) they want, since it could overload one with work and also people pick their mate, or whatever. If we do have a group, I'd prefer the selection were random.

What would be wrong with people picking their mate, if that's who they're most likely to trust, and their mate is in the pool?

[DMB]

I am a bit unkeen on the pool idea, because I see it as too much like erecting a secondary hierarchy. I have two other tentative solutions:

Elect an all-purpose ombudsman for a specified period such as three months, so that s/he is there ready to hit the ground running if an issue comes up. S/he might then deal with more than one at a time. If something were still in play at the end of the three months, then that ombudsman would continue to see it through but would not take on any new cases. It would, however, be possible for the same person to be re-elected for another term.

If urgency is less important, do what the Swiss do with referendums, save up the issues until it is worthwhile to get people to vote on several issues at the same time.

I feel quite strongly that if the ombudsman is not to be seen as being on the side of either the complainant or the staff, it should be someone who is chosen by the membership as a whole and not just chosen by the people involved.

[David B]

.....

I feel quite strongly that if the ombudsman is not to be seen as being on the side of either the complainant or the staff, it should be someone who is chosen by the membership as a whole and not just chosen by the people involved.

Not without problems of its own, if individual ombudsmen are to be chosen for specific cases. The time scale involved in both finding whether people are prepared to do the job, and then vote....

If a pool of perhaps three people or more were elected soon, from whom someone in conflict could choose, then that would speed up the process. For some sort of period - perhaps a year?

With a bigger pool there would be less chance of any individual being identified with staff, I'd hope.

Single transferable vote would be good, I think.

Staff should not vote, I think, but I do think that all candidates should be acceptable to admins as a whole.

David B

[Jet Black]

I'm not sure I like the idea of someone being able to pick which ombudsman (if we have more than one running) they want, since it could overload one with work and also people pick their mate, or whatever. If we do have a group, I'd prefer the selection were random.

What would be wrong with people picking their mate, if that's who they're most likely to trust, and their mate is in the pool?

It's just an attempt to limit possibility of bias or accusations of bias. if we have a pool, then I think random choice from within that pool is a better option.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I don't think that the staff should vote on the Ombudsman, especially since we have the right to veto. There's enough of us to swing a close vote and I think that we should stay out of it. If people would rather keep their votes private, maybe it could go into a temporary subforum that mods don't have posting rights in.

Limiting the ability for close votes to be easily swung (by any special interest group - whether staff, trolls or whatever) is the main reason I wanted to use approval voting rather than "normal" voting.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I'm not sure I like the idea of someone being able to pick which ombudsman (if we have more than one running) they want, since it could overload one with work and also people pick their mate, or whatever. If we do have a group, I'd prefer the selection were random.

What would be wrong with people picking their mate, if that's who they're most likely to trust, and their mate is in the pool?

Because the point of an Ombuddy is to be neutral in a dispute. And if I pick my mate then he automatically has a conflict of interest.

After all, imagine the fuss if the staff picked someone from the pool who was known to dislike the complainant or was known to be friendly to them. The same principle applies.

The Ombuddy should always be voted for by the members at large, rather than picked by any one person - even if picked from a pool that were generally voted for.

[Reverend Spanky]

It's my opinion that the ombudsman has less value if a user does not know what to complain about. It becomes a chicken and egg problem.

If the ombudsman is meant to settle only public disputes of moderation, I see some small value in that, but it has little impact on my transparency concerns.

[Jet Black]

Good catch. As it stands while the ombudsman is there to oversee staff procedure, it appears that the only time the ombudsman does anything is in staff disputes, and that does render the transparency thing a little pointless, as the only avenue it leaves is through whistleblowing. Thanks for pointing it out. RBH was working on drafts for the position, I'll make sure to point this one out.

[Preno]

Would all ombuddys have access to the staff forum all the time? Because that may lead us back to the problem of "they're too close to be unbiased!". If they don't have all the time access, but just are called upon when needed (say, Bob the poster wants an ombuddy to look into his case, and picks the one he feels most comfortable in from the pool) - is that the suggestion?How is reading stuff someone posts equivalent to being too close to them? I don't think I understand this objection.

[Garnet]

Here's a thought. Why not have a group of members that could be voted on right now that could act as ombudsmen and then rotate them as the need arises?

The only thing that PD has said that I agree with today is who he recommended. Add rigs too.

See if they're ready to serve, get some more nominations maybe. Elect a pool of say 3 or 4. That way, we have people, who have been agreed upon ready to go at need.If I understand this, what that would produce is a sort of "ready reserve" of ombuddies, and should the need arise for one, the complainant selects one of them to serve in the instance under appeal. When that selection is made, that ombuddy is given access to the relevant material (if it's not already public) and does his/her thing. Am I understanding this right?

Correct.

[DMB]

I seriously don't see the need for having several ombudsmen at a time. If they are elected by the membership as a whole, for a limited period, they can deal with all issue that come up within that period. An ombudsman isn't like an advocate; s/he is more like a judge. If your case is coming up in court, you don't normally get to pick yur judge from a pool.

[Garnet]

But there is usually more than one judge available for assignment to a case. I like the idea of random selection too. Or maybe even person x for 3 months, person y for 3 months.

My major concern is that the ombuddy be available and ready to go when something arises.

[umop apisdn w,I]

If the ombudsman is meant to settle only public disputes of moderation, I see some small value in that, but it has little impact on my transparency concerns.

That's because they aren't the concerns it is designed to address.

The Ombudsman process is designed to address concerns of the "I got suspended / my threads got moved and I think that Mod X did it out of bias because he hates me rather than because he followed the correct procedure" type, rather than concerns of the "I want to be able to read everything that is posted by any staff member anywhere, please" type.

[Nialler]

My suggestion, FWIW:

The posting community sans staff elects a panel. This means that in the event of a dispute, they have a panel from which to choose if they feel that there is someone on the panel who they feel could represent them. It will speed things up. If they are uncomfortable with the choices, they can then suggest an alternative. In the case that they are happy with a member of the panel, it makes the process reasonably quick; if they feel the need to propose an alternative, it could take a while to find volunteers and have a vote.

The panel does not have access to any private forums; a seperate forum is created for the thread for purposes of allowing access to the appointed ombudsman. This involves a leap of trust for everyone: I, for one, wouldn't consider doing the job if I thought that there was a chance the the relevant thread had been edited before being allowed to see it.

In the meantime, and as always, everyone speaking in private should comport themselves as if they are speaking in public.

[DMB]

My suggestion, FWIW:

The posting community sans staff elects a panel. This means that in the event of a dispute, they have a panel from which to choose if they feel that there is someone on the panel who they feel could represent them. It will speed things up. If they are uncomfortable with the choices, they can then suggest an alternative. In the case that they are happy with a member of the panel, it makes the process reasonably quick; if they feel the need to propose an alternative, it could take a while to find volunteers and have a vote.

The panel does not have access to any private forums; a seperate forum is created for the thread for purposes of allowing access to the appointed ombudsman. This involves a leap of trust for everyone: I, for one, wouldn't consider doing the job if I thought that there was a chance the the relevant thread had been edited before being allowed to see it.

In the meantime, and as always, everyone speaking in private should comport themselves as if they are speaking in public.

You are talking here about the chosen person representing someone. I really don't think that that is the role of an ombudsman. S/he should ideally be as neutral an umpire as possible, listening to complaints, but not necessarily taking anyone's part: simply looking to see that there has been fair play, and calling out anyone who has gone beyond the allowable limits.

[Nialler]

You are talking here about the chosen person representing someone. I really don't think that that is the role of an ombudsman. S/he should ideally be as neutral an umpire as possible, listening to complaints, but not necessarily taking anyone's part: simply looking to see that there has been fair play, and calling out anyone who has gone beyond the allowable limits.
Well I really think that what they would be representing is the board and its interests rather than solely the person with the petition.

I may have expressed my idea of the role badly.

The reprentation would on the basis that the poster selected their representative.

[DMB]

You are talking here about the chosen person representing someone. I really don't think that that is the role of an ombudsman. S/he should ideally be as neutral an umpire as possible, listening to complaints, but not necessarily taking anyone's part: simply looking to see that there has been fair play, and calling out anyone who has gone beyond the allowable limits.
Well I really think that what they would be representing is the board and its interests rather than solely the person with the petition.

I may have expressed my idea of the role badly.

The reprentation would on the basis that the poster selected their representative.

Would the poster's representative be someone different from the ombudsman?

[RBH]

The posting community sans staff elects a panel. This means that in the event of a dispute, they have a panel from which to choose if they feel that there is someone on the panel who they feel could represent them. It will speed things up. If they are uncomfortable with the choices, they can then suggest an alternative. In the case that they are happy with a member of the panel, it makes the process reasonably quick; if they feel the need to propose an alternative, it could take a while to find volunteers and have a vote.DMB has alread said this, but I'll emphasize it: That slightly misinterprets the ombudsman's task. It is not to "represent" the complainant -- the ombudsman is not an advocate except as he or she is an advocate for the integrity of the board. The ombudsman's role is to mediate a dispute, ensuring that the appropriate processes have occurred, and that the staff acted according to its own guidelines in a manner consistent with the ethos of the board. The ombudsman does not argue the complaint's (or the staff's) case, but rather ensures that the case was fairly handled.

As Nialler appropriately amended his remark, the ombudsman "represents" the board in the abstract. The ombudsman's role to preserve the fair and equitable application of the rules of the board in instances where someone feels that has not occurred.

[Nialler]

The ombudsman's role [is] to preserve the fair and equitable application of the rules of the board in instances where someone feels that has not occurred.That is entirely my understanding.
A Trustee role.

[Octavia]

How is reading stuff someone posts equivalent to being too close to them? I don't think I understand this objection.

I don't feel it myself, but apparently some do.

[Quizalufagus]

I don't understand the complaint that a permanent ombudsman would become akin to staff, and I believe we have need of such a person.

[David B]

I don't understand the complaint that a permanent ombudsman would become akin to staff, and I believe we have need of such a person.

I can understand it, and see it as a real danger.

Though my opinion is that someone well chosen, like Rathpig, Nialler, or Lao Tzu would obviate the danger.

Independent reviewers of stuff in other contexts than message boards have sometimes looked like over sympathetic to the powers that be.

Like independent people who have looked into the 'cash for honours' controversy in the UK.

And the Iraq war related controversy in the UK.

David (also thinks we have need of such a person, but it has to be a good one)

[Loren Pechtel]

A few thoughts:

1) I think the balloting should be private even though that allows staff to vote.

2) I do not think there should be a pool. I think it's better done in each case as they should be neutral to the issue in question and a pre-picked person might not be. A pool also runs the same risk of becoming too close to the staff that having one such person does.

3) How about a rule that nobody can serve more than once a month and can't serve consecutive times no matter what the time interval.

[Jet Black]

A few thoughts:

1) I think the balloting should be private even though that allows staff to vote.

2) I do not think there should be a pool. I think it's better done in each case as they should be neutral to the issue in question and a pre-picked person might not be. A pool also runs the same risk of becoming too close to the staff that having one such person does.

3) How about a rule that nobody can serve more than once a month and can't serve consecutive times no matter what the time interval.

I think it is possible to set up a ballot that does not allow moderators to vote. Us admins could probably get away with it though.

[RBH]

OK, I'm going to close this thread now and try to sort out things for the next draft.