Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings
I am sorry to turn you wrong.
My mail system was so much loaded that I scrapped a lot of junk
yesterday, so I cannot document precisely my own postings.
But I certainly crossed the 425 days old Roberto's suggestion yesterday
and the day before and probably the days before that.
Anyway I do not subscribe to the filtered list and I will continue receiving
everyone's post. I certaily support the bold approach of the new Chair,
but I think with him urgent to give it a revived appropriate frame. I hope
WXW is not barred from the sub-ML the Chair proposed ... I must say
I lost track of the URL.
But, dear WXW; you woul really help all of us in staying the nice and
sound list partner you also know to be.
Since WXW refered to the IDNO list management, I must say that I was
very confortable with two simple rules which existed there (and that WXW
used at his own advantage too). They might be translated in here as
1. a tool to be designed to automate the decision process.
- a motion can be entered by anyone
- if seconded by two persons and not objected within 72 hours it is
- otherwise it is subject to a vote. Result at the end of a week.
- an amendment mechanism possible
2. a tool to be designed for complaint process:(so the process is
- complaints can be filled by anyone but publicly
- they must be seconded by 10 people
- the concerned person may have a link to a position page
- the decision is taken by a panel of 10 elected (not selected)
The advantage of these is to automate processes removing the
burden from the Chair, making things transparent and equal for all,
and - I feel - quite fair.
I would like to propose a third improvement to our discussions to
decrease the load and really work towards consensus. This is my
"position link" proposition.
- for each topic we want to discuss : a site and a sub-ML
- on the site: links to pages by those who want one
- throiugh these links people may document and update their
- a new commer may understand the working positions quick
- occasional contributors may share/help a lot with precise
and matter of fact postings
- this is self filtering: perturbators have usually no doctrine
- the links de facto document the competence of participants,
and act as competence filters witout anyone being hurt
- the target is to reduce progressively the differences between
position links, topic by topic, until consensa may be found.
Nothing personal is involved : the positions are personal so
everyone knows the positions and 'bias' of each link and try
to reduce them in negotiating words and in deepening meanings.
Those who do not want to move nor to explain why are
putting themselves out. The Chair may remove the non
supported links upon proposition of the positionneers.
On 06:34 18/04/01, firstname.lastname@example.org said:
>Having perused the archives for this period I find the following have also
>breached the 5 posts per day limit.
>Chris Ambler - breached on 12, 14, 15 April
>Bradley Thorton - breached (by double) on 15 April
>Patrick Corliss - breached by double on 14 and 16 April
>Roeland Meyer - breached on 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 April
>Dave Crocker - breached on 13 and 14 April
>Kent Crispin - breached on 17 April
>I am in no way asking for these people to be "disciplined" also. I merely
>suggest that the decision to suspend Mr Walsh on *the grounds stated* be
>revisited as it seems on the published grounds, there are another half
>more people who have done much the same.
>Deciding whether a post is abusive or not is always going to be a subjective
>judgement of some sort. However applying a posting limit should IMO be done
>far more objectively.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html