Re: [ga-rules] Fwd: Re: The real reason the rules don't work.....

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Mr. Svensson,

First of all thank you for your hard work and careful analysis which you
perform as a monitor.

As is obvious this is not a constituency and therefor banning by popularity
is not appropriate.  I have yet to see evidence that anything is broke at
input and participation levels.  Please review the output from the WGs
regarding outreach and education.  By in large participation and production
is not hampered by flame wars or crude and rude and lascivious comments.
Participation and production are harmed by two factors and them alone; 1.
efficacy: grown peoples will not waste their time on something which
achieves no result and, 2. Language.

Thank you,
Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello William,
>
> > Joop has suggested that the rules are the fault for the fact that they
> > are ineffective.
> >
> > I believe that is far from the case.
> >
> > The real reason is that the moderators are not free to act on their
> > own initiative and to act in a precipitous fashion to complaints,
> > since they have to hash everything out by committee under our current
> > chair's "rules."
>
> I think you're both right and wrong.
> First of all, the internal rules were not proposed by
> Danny or Patrick, but by Harald Alvestrand. Indeed,
> the moderators wait for complaints, but I don't think
> this has been much of a drawback.
>
> The reason why the decisions take so much time is what
> you call 'hashing it out by committee'. If the
> recommendation of monitor 1 is not supported by any
> other monitor 2 (or if there even are objections),
> the process is slowed down. But this is not accidental:
> It shows that there is disagreement about either the
> gravity of the complaint or the recommended action.
> We have to debate until we have a clear majority
> (which is obviously hard with only /two/ monitors).
>
> > When I was with ml.org and managed the abuse team, the way it worked
> > was that the complaints were handed off to a Trouble Ticket system,
> > then abuse team members would assign themselves tickets to handle as
> > they were able, and dispose of the complaints appropriately.
> > Dispositions were forwarded to the abuse team leader for review.
>
> With currently two moderators, this is almost what happens,
> only that not the "abuse team leader" (which we don't have),
> but the other moderator reviews the recommendation and
> endorses or objects.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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

--
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