Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 11:41 13.01.00 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>Harald,
>
>There is a danger in having rules (especially filtering rules) that are be
>implemented only at the discretion of the Chair or the Sergeants at Arms.
>
>Therefore a suggestion for a minor improvement:
>
>Challenged identities, insults and slander.
>
>In order to make sure that the SaA will actually act to protect the list
>from these, there should be a provision such as:
>
>"complaints about list-behaviour or challenges about a poster's identity
>are directed to the Chair , who must instruct the SaA to take appropriate
>action".

I don't like this, because:

a) it narrows the bandwidth available to that of the Chair - we should have
    more than 1 SAA, so that abuse can be dealt with quickly at any time
b) if it's the Chair's decision to instruct, he cannot be an appeals body.
    I think a 2-level system is important (and hope it's not needed).

The Chair can always route around an unresponsive SAA by appointing another 
one, and fix an overactive one by firing him.

>(What that action is, can then be seen from following the ga-unfiltered
>list. It is clear that there should also be ways to sanction a Chair who
>would allow filtering rules to be applied in a biased manner)

I think all actions should be explicitly announced by the imposer; the 
effects of the action would be seen by comparing ga-unfiltered to ga.
There's a big chance that some screwups will be made (just this week, a 
Baptista post got onto the announce@dnso.org list), but systematic, 
nonannounced filtering is IMHO not a Good Thing.

My thoughts, of course.....

                   Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no