[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Comments from Pawlo
Comments to suggestion posted at:
>Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>Not using offensive language
>If the GA Chair or Sergeant-at-arms asks for a limit to the nuber of
Should be "number of posts".
>Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the Sergeants-At-Arms) have
>task of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.
>These are selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be
>removed from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any
>Normally the appointment would be for 1 year.
Maybe the SAA should have a more free role from the GA Chair, hence maybe
the SAA should be choosen by the list subscribers.
>A Sergeant-At-Arms may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:
I suggest there be only one (1) sanction, that is suspension. If the
sanction is needed suspension is a fair punishment, monitoring
(censorship) does not make sense.
>Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2
>weeks), and are announced on the mailing list.
Sanction time should be more clearly defined. I say 7 days for first-time
offenders and 14 days if the same individual repeat an offense.
>The period is decided by the sergeant-at-arms.
No, the period is fixed as suggested above.
>Note that due to technical issues, monitoring one member's postings may
>cause monitoring to be applied to other members' posts.
Obviously this is not acceptable - this just another reason to strike the
sanction as such.
>The action of the sergeant-at-arms may be appealed to the GA Chair.
No. Three SAAs are choosen in majority election by the list members. If
the member who's been punished by a SAA wants to appeal, he'll make his
appeal to the SAA appeal board. The SAA appeal board will consist of the
two SAAs who did not make the decision and of one randomly choosen list
member. The SAA appeal board will make a final decision on the matter.
I hope you find my views useful.