Re: [ga] Message from the Chair

[Alex Kamantauskas <alexk@tugger.net>]

>>  Or because there position differs from that of the SAA?  I would like
>>  some form of guarantee that *only* the disruptors are removed...
> 
> Alex,
> the rules I proposed mention only two reasons for being removed:
> 
> - Failure to behave (some examples of which are mentioned)
>    (this is ONLY temporary)
> - Reason to believe that one participant has tried to speak using several
>    distinct identities (this removal is permanent).
> 
> What kind of assurance in the rules would reassure you, given that what you 
> fear isn't possible when following the rules?

 One guarantee that I would like is that when a person breaks the rules,
 the list be informed that the offender is going to be excluded.  I guess
 I'm just wary of the of the vagueness of "failure to behave" clause.  As
 a hypothetical example, say person A  holds a certain position, and the SAA
 (or SAAs) hold an opposite position, and person A is excluded, ostensibly
 for "failing to behave" but really because the SAA doesn't like their
 position.  If the list were informed by the SAA that "Person A is being
 excluded because of the following reasons", and its obvious that person A
 is being railroaded, than the resulting furor caused by that would be
 enough of a guarantee that some form of justice would be served.

--
Alex Kamantauskas
alexk@tugger.net