[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions
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 Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway