Re: [ga] List rules

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:39 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

That looks vaguely familiar... ;-)

<start list rules>
Each mailing list will have exactly three people whose role is to maintain 
civility, order and generally keep the discussion on topic. For any action 
to be taken, all three must agree. These "guardians" act like moderators, 
but the lists are distinctly not moderated in the usual and formal sense of 
the word as it applied to mailing lists. The term moderator will be used 
here but please understand what is trying to be achieved is somewhere 
between the rigid constraints of a moderated mailing list and an complete 
anarchy that sometimes happens with unmoderated mailing lists.

1. The mailing list will be a place where all discourse is civil and 
polite. No personal attacks or slander, no negative sarcastic or facetious 
remarks. No name-calling. We're not a completely humorless bunch here, but 
simple etiquette is expected. Emily Post defines etiquette this way: "If 
what you say or do makes somebody uncomfortable, that is a breach of 
etiquette".

2. The final arbiter of the definition of "civil and polite" will be the 
list moderators. The list moderators are [guardian 1 <email@dnso.org>], 
[guardian 3 <email@dnso.org>] and [guardian 3 <email@dnso.org>].

3. Complaints may be sent to any of the addresses above, either by the 
person offended or by any other member of the list. They should not be sent 
to the list as well.

4. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the offender will be invited to submit 
to the group, and to the person offended, an on-line apology which has been 
accepted by the latter.

5. Beginning with the third warning, the moderators shall have the 
authority to remove the offenders ability to post to the mailing list.

6. The mailing list will be otherwise open and unfiltered by the mail 
distribution server.

7. All discussion about the moderator's performance is explicitly 
permitted, but must take place in messages that deal ONLY with the 
moderator's performance, and not with any of the other topics of discussion 
on the mailing list.
</end list rules>


>The recent messages from two of our members reminded me that we need to 
>get a formal vote according to the approved voting rules on the list rules.
>
>I would like the GA to consider adopting the current rules, with the 
>following changes:
>
>- There are 3 list monitors, not one. Any two of them can take action.
>- The list monitors are elected by the GA electorate using Instant Runoff 
>Voting.
>- Wording change: replace "sergeant-at-arms" with "list monitor" throughout
>- Change "The content of messages on the GA list" to "The content of messages
>   sent to the GA list". This eliminates an ambiguity when out-of-bonds
>   messages are sent to the GA list, but only appear on GA-full because of
>   crossposting or other reasons for rejection.
>
>I think that's the only changes I want to make based on experience.
>Your mileage may vary.
>
>(I would still appreciate it if someone could come up with candidate text 
>for describing IRV in implementable detail... but I think we know what we 
>mean by it by now, enough to figure out whether that's what we want)
>
>Thoughts?
>
>                  Harald
>
>
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
>+47 41 44 29 94
>Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
>
>
>--
>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


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

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