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

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

At 02:18 26.01.00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>Do you plan on authoring the next version yourself,

No, I hope not to.

>  and if so, in what
>timeframe?

I would expect a revision of the mailing list rules in 3 months or so, when 
the voting procedures are in place.

>  > >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.
>
>While I don't disagree with such a requirement, I'd like to know where
>such a requirement is written. Or are you stating that it is your belief
>that this should be a requirement of elected officials?

I would feel delinquent if I did not read the official mailing lists of the 
bodies where I am a member; I read the GA list, the IETF list and the IAB 
list pretty religiously.

Since there are no written rules for GA officials (yet), I don't think it's 
written down anywhere.


> > 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.
>
>Allowing a single SAA autonomous censuring authority, and free reign in
>deciding the length of a suspension is an open invitation for abuse.
>Please consider the case of a "rogue" SAA, or an SAA that is the close
>personal friend of someone whose conduct they are reviewing for possible
>censure.

Remember that the GA Chair can fire a SAA at will, so we require two levels 
of corruption.
One reason for me wanting at least 2 SAAs capable of acting independently 
is that I think it best to avoid having a SAA judging whether or not to 
censure a member for attacks against himself.
(again not being absolute - or we would find people putting insults against 
all SAAs into their .sig file, thinking that this would render them 
invulnerable.....)

One reason for me wanting to not require 3 or more SAAs is that I don't 
know if we have that many volunteers.
(Volunteers: Email Roberto ASAP, please.....)

                       Harald A

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