Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 15:36 25.01.00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>1) Language regarding whether or not the GA mailing list is a
>    decision-making body or not.
>
>    My personal opinion is that any such language should be stricken
>    as the proposal was and is not the proper place to determine
>    or make statements regarding this.

My personal opinion is also that they don't belong in the rules, and should 
be stricken from the next version.

>2) In deciding to have a filtered list and an unfiltered list, which list
>    is the "official" GA mailing list?
>
>    I believe that if two seperate lists are maintained both lists
>    constitute an "official" record, and as such identical, web-based
>    access should be provided to both lists.

I believe that the elected officers of the GA have a requirement to read 
all messages to the "official" list. That's the only part of "official" I 
think has any practical consequences here.

I agree that both archives are part of the records of the DNSO.

I choose not to reply to your point 3) at the present time, it is too complex.

>
>4) The SAA(s)
>
>    The proposal provides for only one Sergeant at Arms, selected by
>    Roberto. I believe this to be both inadequate and inappropriate.

Also untrue. The proposal is for multiple SAAs.
However, each is capable of acting on his own.

>   I'd propose(again) that there are three Sergeant at Arms(to avoid ties,
>    elected by the mailing list membership, and not *selected* by Roberto.
>    Again, I am not questioning Roberto, however this issue transcends
>    individual personalities, and as such I believe that the power
>    to remove someones ability to speak should not be carried by a single
>    individual, and that those individuals should be chosen by those that
>    will be affected by such decisions rather than by a potentially
>    arbitrary process.

Agree, as soon as we have agreement on a voting mechanism.
I believe it is unreasonable to expect to be able to elect officers before 
having a voting mechanism.

>5) The determination and length of suspension.
>
>    Barring activities such as Denial-of-Service attacks(which should
>    result in immediate removal and contacting the proper authorities)
>    the length of suspension should be applied according to agreed
>    upon formula(1st, 2nd, 3rd offense, length relative to denial of
>    readmission to filtered list etc.) and *never* should
>    be determined in an arbitrary fashion by the SAA(s).

Disagree, for reasons stated before - mainly that I think there are 
situations where the SAAs may reasonably choose to be more lenient than the 
formula suggested would allow them to be.

>6) The Appeals process.
>
>    An appeal, just as action to censure, should not be decided by a single
>    individual.  Anyone wishing to appeal the decision of the SAA(s) should
>    be required to garner a sufficient vote of support among list
>    members(say 10( or a percentage of list members?)) for such an appeal
>    for it to be considered. Pending demonstration of sufficient support,
>    the issue should be put before the list membership, and *not* to the
>    Chair. Beyond the stated rules and judgement of the SAA(s), it should
>    be the list members that decide what is and is not appropriate
>    behaviour on THEIR list.
>
>    An appeals process as described above avoids potentially arbitrary,
>    biased decisions by a single individual, creates checks and
>    balances against a potentially "captured" group of SAA's and/or Chair,
>    and also makes it very difficult for an individual to consume a
>    large quantity of resources by filing a frivolous and/or baseless appeal.

Agree in principle (possibly not in the details), as soon as we have a 
voting mechanism in place.

However, we cannot do any of this NOW.

                          Harald A

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no