Re: [ga-rules] RE: [ga] bringing the rules into the 21st century

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Darryl (AKA Dessa) and all,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
> |> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 2:39 PM
> |> To: ga@dnso.org
> |> Subject: [ga] bringing the rules into the 21st century
> |>
> |>
> |> GA-Rules sublists had my proposal several days ago and there has been
> |> not direct opposition to it.  The proposal suggests amending our rules
> |> to formally acknowledge the sub lists.  It also modifies the powers of
> |> the monitors and shifts responsibility for banning to the chair.
>
> I disagree with the Chair assuming this responsibility at the present time.
> One of the reasons for the Monitor system being set up is so the Chair
> isn't burdened with this chore.  At the present time, any bans are imposed
> by a majority vote of the Monitors I believe, this is better than a single
> individual having the responsibility.

  I agree.

>  The Chair does have the
> responsibility of hearing appeals I believe.  This seems a reasonable
> system if one is necessary.

  I don't agree that this is sufficient or even reasonable.  Any appeals
should be in front of an appeals board of 5 to 7 individuals with a majority
decision carrying the day if this inane process is to continue.

>
>
> |> We have also had very constructive dialogue regarding a Buddy system
> |> which appears to have support as an informal concept but not as set
> |> rules.
>
> Yes, I agree with a voluntary system.
>
> |> I have proposed a compromise that we blend the buddies with the monitors
> |> and create a situation where instead of banning we have violators serve
> |> some community service by helping the monitors mentor.
>
> I do not agree with this and can not see how it could be enforced.

  I don't see that enforcement in a voluntary is required.

>
>
> |> Please take this up here so that a formal motion can be made to bring
> |> our rules up to date with the evolution of the GA.
>
> I really don't think these ideas are ready to formed into a motion as yet.
> There are a number of points that need to be honed.

  What points are you referring to?  Can you list them for everyone?
Personally I don't see any that have not already been discussed.

>  If you wish to have
> the motion successful it would be of benefit to get a good discussion on
> the finer points going so your motion has more chance of being taken
> seriously.

  I and a some others have already stated that they take these issues
separately, seriously.  So to do as Eric suggests doesn't seem to be
that big of a step as to make them a situation that would not be taken
seriously by anyone of a reasonable nature....

>
>
> |> I will be moving to bring other motions to the front through the other
> |> sublists where they can be thrashed about on topic.
>
> Far better to thrash out the issues before taken it to motion IMHO.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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