[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions
Patrick and all DNSO'ers,
Some very good recommendations and ideas here Patrick. I believe
that these should be given some serious consideration and put up
for possible amendment as well as a vote on Joops (Voting Booth?)...
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Harald, and everyone:
>
> As a follow-up to my previous post I'd like to identify and offer my own
> opinions/recommendations regarding major points of
> objection/discussion/suggested amendments to certain aspects of your
> proposal so that subsequent action may be taken as appropriate. I believe
> that some such actions are vital in reflecting a structure and ruleset
> that creates a more equitable and representative set of checks and
> balances, serve to improve upon the original safeguards proposed to limit
> the ability of the disruptive to cause damage and consume resources, and
> most importantly is agreeable to the widest number of participants in
> these discussion.
>
> The current situation where the Chair has made a unilateral decision
> to adopt Harald's proposal in total, based on the results of what we were
> told was merely an "opinion poll", a poll where there is ample evidence
> of fraud, is inappropriate to say the least.
>
> The following is in no way intended to be a comprehensive list, including
> only those items I can recollect/have an opinion on, and I would like to
> invite further items/revisions/comments/etc.:
>
> 1) Language regarding whether or not the GA mailing list is a
> decision-making body or not.
>
> My personal opinion is that any such language should be stricken
> as the proposal was and is not the proper place to determine
> or make statements regarding this.
>
> 2) In deciding to have a filtered list and an unfiltered list, which list
> is the "official" GA mailing list?
>
> I believe that if two seperate lists are maintained both lists
> constitute an "official" record, and as such identical, web-based
> access should be provided to both lists.
>
> Providing identical access provides an easy and effective way
> for *external* parties to evaluate for themselves claims of
> bias or "censorship," and if they are interested to decide *for
> themselves* which list is appropriate for them.
>
> Offering web-access also allows everyone a simple, convienent place
> to point those unfamilar with particular individuals behaviour and
> or identity to so that they can judge for themselves whether or
> not an individual is who they say they are and warrant speaking to.
> Given the continuing and unfortunately numerous successful incidences
> of certains individual fraudulently misrepresenting themselves,
> in some cases doing such a thorough job that they receive quotations in
> the press, I believe this to be a very important resource to provide
> for the community at large.
>
> As Ellen Rony has so aptly stated previously: "on the Internet no one
> knows you're a dog." One of the only ways available to someone to make
> this determination is by having simple, ready access to a record of
> their statements.
>
> Making this data only available via FTP as has been suggested by
> someone is insufficient as it renders search and retrevial much more
> difficult especially to those not technically inclined and as such much
> less likely to be reviewed. This may actually have been the intent
> of the individual who suggested that, however, while I understand the
> intent is to not provide a few misbehaving individuals an equal
> platform, I do not believe that obsuring the entire record is the
> most sensible course of action. I feel even more strongly that this is
> the case if there are two completely distinct lists where individuals
> have voluntarily chosen the "unfiltered" list and are participating
> in good faith. The same level of display and access to this
> record doesn't serve as a platform for the disruptive, as they have
> no meaningful platform. Rather it serves as an easily available,
> ongoing substantiation of the need for rules and filters in the first
> place, and as a warning to those that might be duped into taking
> one of these individuals seriously.
>
> In reality, I don't believe it isn't necessary to have two
> entirely seperate lists at all, which may provide a solution
> that will make most everyone happy, as I will explain in the next item.
>
> 3) The nature of and relationship between the filtered and unfiltered
> lists.
>
> I believe I mentioned this before in some form. After giving it
> some thought, I'd like to offer a much more clarified view
> and suggestion.
>
> The suggestion changes the character and relationships of the
> lists and may initially appear a bit confusing, however I
> believe it to be a good idea if it is thought through, or at least one
> that I hope you all will consider.
>
> Somewhat differently from the proposal and perhaps the common view
> of distinct filtered and unfiltered lists, I see the purpose of the
> unfiltered version of the list as two-fold:
>
> o As a place where those individuals for whom "list ettiquete"
> rules are unecessary as they behave civilly but for whom
> filtering results in sufficient moral or other objections to
> subscribe.
>
> o As a place where those censured for their misbehaviour on
> the filtered list are restricted for the term of the censure.
>
> It would seem reasonable and appropriate to me that the first group
> have the ability to post to the filtered list subject of course
> to the corresponding ruleset. Their subscription to the unfiltered
> list due to objections regarding filtering should not
> automatically preclude those individuals from being heard by everyone.
>
> It would likewise seem reasonable when the ability of an individual to
> post to the filtered list has been removed for violation of "filtered"
> list policies, that a notice of their pending readmission be posted to
> the filtered list by the SAA(s), and their behaviour on the
> "unfiltered" list be reviewed upon request or objection with
> specific references to actions/statements believed to be in
> violation of filtered list rules before reinstatement of posting rights
> to that list.
>
> Only the actions of the individual will result in the removal of
> posting rights to the filtered version of the list, a removal that
> would not (hopefully) be enacted lightly. Given the gravity of any
> action/statements warranting suspension, I do not believe that it is in
> anyones best interest to reinstate any individuals posting rights to
> the filtered list if they continue in, or engage in any new/different
> pattern of behaviour that would have resulted in their removal from the
> filtered list.
>
> By only reviewing behaviour upon request/objection with specific
> references to posts made on the unfiltered GA list, the burden
> of "montioring" an individuals entire history of behaviour that an SAA
> might otherwise have to perform is removed, only necessitating review
> of a single or very few posts.
>
> "Anything may go" on the unfiltered version of the list, however I see
> no problem or conflict in considering the behaviour on the unfiltered
> version of the list of any individual seeking readmittance to the
> filtered version of the list if it is made clear that a determination
> may be based on such criteria.
>
> If you can see any sense in such a "probationary" approach, then I
> believe it becomes clear that there isn't any actual need to have two
> seperate and distinct "filtered" and "unfiltered" lists at all from an
> administration standpoint. Consider this:
>
> o Everyone receives posts to the "filtered" version of the list.
>
> o Everyone who is not marked as being "filtered"(from posting) may
> post to the list.
>
> o Everyone who *is* marked as being filtered(from posting) is
> limited to a certain number of posts per day and has
> their posts shunted off to only the subset of list subscribers
> that have chosen the "unfiltered" option where the mail-from/reply
> to address is set to that of the sender rather than the list.
> The purpose of this to decrease the number of posts sent to the
> list from the "unfiltered in good standing" in response to those
> being filtered.
> Similarly, posts from the filtered would be flagged as such,
> making it is a simple matter to have whatever web-based
> viewing/search software display the "filtered" or
> "unfiltered" view of the archive with little additional overhead.
>
> I believe that implementation of such a system would result in:
>
> o A much more cohesive and comprehensive ongoing dialogue among
> *everyone* that isn't disruptive interested in the issues of the GA
> regardless of their views on filtering
>
> o Lessening of overhead in maintaining,archiving, and displaying
> the contents of two entirely seperate lists.
>
> o Afford those who are capable of learning how to behave themselves
> to opportunity to do so, while preventing those that can't or
> aren't willing to from regular, guaranteed reinstatement of posting
> privleges to the filtered list, which further limits the
> potential frequency of disruptions.
>
> o Further reduce the noise, disruption and overhead associated
> with disruptive individuals who are being filtered by both directly
> limiting the volume of their posts, and indirectly reducing the
> number of messages needed to be delivered/archived by setting the
> mail-from/reply header to them rather than to the list.
>
> It is my opinion that the ability to post to the "filtered" list should be
> seen as a right, and as such everyone should(and does) automatically have
> that ability. However, rights come with responsiblities as we are
> discussing implementing; the right to post is in no way absolute, and is
> appropriately removed from those unwilling to accept basic responsibility.
>
> I do not believe that it is necessary to create a completely seperate
> playground(mailing list) in deference to the disruptive.
>
> I do not believe it is necessary for the GA as a whole to lose the
> meaningful participation of those who simply object to filtering.
>
> I also do not believe it is the responsibility of any organization to
> provide those who have shown themselves to be so lacking in common decency
> and honesty as to necessitate taking such unfortunate actions the
> opportunity to interact with the same freedom, and ease in consuming
> unlimited resources afforded to those who use such resources
> respectfully.
>
> The results of the current course of action based on the apparently common
> view of the nature and relationship of the mailing lists, in which each
> mailing list is completely seperate, and specific aspects or lack thereof
> within your proposal are clear:
>
> a) Two completely seperate lists, with a potentially completely
> different subscriber base will result in potentially completely
> unrelated discussions or parallel conversations in which the
> benefits of the thoughts/ideas/opinions of those civil
> participants who choose the "unfiltered" list on principle will
> be lost to the GA as a whole.
>
> or
>
> b) Individuals will be forced to subscribe to both lists and
> submit all their posts/responses to both lists, greatly
> increasing the amount of resouces required to handle this.
>
> c) Filtered list members would be subjected to the same abusive,
> disruptive behaviour of those committed to such acts on a
> periodic, ongoing basis as they are re-admitted subject to
> the lapse in a suspension period lasting the length of one of a
> few fixed durations, arbitrarily arrived at by a single SAA,
> and irrespective of any relevant conduct during the time of the
> suspension.
>
> d) By creating a distinct list with no rules and where "anything
> goes," the disruptive are able to consume a nearly equal,
> equal, or even greater amount of resources than everyone else.
>
> 4) The SAA(s)
>
> The proposal provides for only one Sergeant at Arms, selected by
> Roberto. I believe this to be both inadequate and inappropriate.
>
> I'd propose(again) that there are three Sergeant at Arms(to avoid ties,
> elected by the mailing list membership, and not *selected* by Roberto.
> Again, I am not questioning Roberto, however this issue transcends
> individual personalities, and as such I believe that the power
> to remove someones ability to speak should not be carried by a single
> individual, and that those individuals should be chosen by those that
> will be affected by such decisions rather than by a potentially
> arbitrary process.
>
> 5) The determination and length of suspension.
>
> Barring activities such as Denial-of-Service attacks(which should
> result in immediate removal and contacting the proper authorities)
> the length of suspension should be applied according to agreed
> upon formula(1st, 2nd, 3rd offense, length relative to denial of
> readmission to filtered list etc.) and *never* should
> be determined in an arbitrary fashion by the SAA(s). The role
> of the SAA(s) should be to determine if a violation warranting
> suspension has occured. They should not be in the business of
> deciding the length of the "punishment," except as defined
> by standardized, concrete guidelines, as any system where they
> decide length is subject solely to their own value system. The
> arbitrary and potentially unfair nature of such a system is amplified
> by the presence of only a single SAA selected by the Chair.
>
> Any suspensions should be conducted in a completely consistent,
> equitable and unbiased fashion. Allowing the SAA(s) to choose
> length of suspension does not create such an enviroment and increases
> the potential for abuse.
>
> 6) The Appeals process.
>
> An appeal, just as action to censure, should not be decided by a single
> individual. Anyone wishing to appeal the decision of the SAA(s) should
> be required to garner a sufficient vote of support among list
> members(say 10( or a percentage of list members?)) for such an appeal
> for it to be considered. Pending demonstration of sufficient support,
> the issue should be put before the list membership, and *not* to the
> Chair. Beyond the stated rules and judgement of the SAA(s), it should
> be the list members that decide what is and is not appropriate
> behaviour on THEIR list.
>
> An appeals process as described above avoids potentially arbitrary,
> biased decisions by a single individual, creates checks and
> balances against a potentially "captured" group of SAA's and/or Chair,
> and also makes it very difficult for an individual to consume a
> large quantity of resources by filing a frivolous and/or baseless appeal.
>
>
> I'd like to reiterate that any structure of this nature must transcend
> individual personalities making an equitable, effective system of checks
> and balances vital in whatever plan is implemented.
>
> I would welcome everyone's thoughts on any or all of this.
>
> I'd like to also ask the Chair that pending discussion/further revisions
> of any proposal(s) to amend aspects of Harald's proposal be put to the
> list members to decide, rather than adopted or rejected by fiat.
>
> Finally, if positions are going to be collected, and action is taken
> based on the expression of those positions, let's call them what they
> are: VOTES and not "opinion polls."
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell
> Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell
> Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html