Policy-Discussion

[Philipp Gühring <pg AT futureware.at>]

Hi,

> > Should we add the position for an Arbitration Officer?

Well, my idea was that the Arbitration Officer (or ADR Officer, that's fine), 
is not an Arbitrator himself, but just organises the whole arbitration 
system. Writes the policies, invites the people to become arbitrators, 
coordinates the list of arbitrators, cares about making sure that everyone 
knows about the arbitration system, ...

Well, one question is whether Arbitration is a product. If it is a product, 
then ADS Product Manager would be a better title. But Arbitration doesn't 
feel like a product to me.


> There are potentially two different roles applicable, being
> the Arbitrator and the Case Manager.
>
> I'm guessing that the Case Manager is the one you mean, also
> I suspect it is needed in place first.  I think the rules
> say that if a Case Manager is not appointed then it defaults
> to support (?) so who is currently acting as the lead support ?

Hmmm, no, I didn't meant Case Manager. I guess that the core-team will be 
Case-Manager's. (What is the job description of a Case-Manager, to make sure 
that I don't misunderstand that one)

> So, in that sense, the support person would stand in for the
> Case Manager, who would potentially become the Arbitration
> Officer in time.
>
> (Maybe better to not call the role "Arbitration Officer"
> though, so as not to give rise to confusions as to whether
> they are an Arbitrator or not.  Perhaps:  Dispute Resolution
> Officer, or ADR Officer.  ADR is a widely understood acronym
> in the legal world ... Alternate Dispute Resolution ... and
> encompasses Arbitration and Mediation as an art.)

Best regards,
Philipp Gühring