Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Not everybody was present when the rules were formulated, understands what
they were "intended" to be or has the benefit of second sight.

As set down, they seem to fairly vague:-

With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.
With respect to comments made about a person to add context vs. treating a
colleague in a derogatory manner, etc..etc..

This is not a criticism, but it is a proposal to add this topic to the
agenda of items requiring clarification during the coming year, if only to
reduce the burden on the ga-abuse complaints list.

Translation into other languages might be good idea also.
 
Regards,
Joanna



on 4/17/01 2:51 AM, William X. Walsh at william@userfriendly.com wrote:

> Hello Patrick,
> 
> Monday, April 16, 2001, 11:13:46 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
>> NOTE:  The Chair is temporarily absent and I speak with his authority.
> 
>> Hi Christopher
> 
>> I appreciate the comment to which you refer was directed to Michael Froomkin
>> personally and, as such, may not comply with the list rules and protocols.
> 
> I disagree.  These are NOT the kinds of comments that the list rules
> were intended to address, neither Kent's nor Chris' response.
> 
> We need to be careful not to broaden the rules, or we make the
> criticisms levied when they were enacted become prophecy instead.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html