Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions

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

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 15:36 25.01.00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> My personal opinion is also that they don't belong in the rules, and should
> be stricken from the next version.

  I agree, as the members of the DNSO GA and the Announce list ARE
the members of the DNSO General Assembly.

>
>
> >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.
>
> I believe that the elected officers of the GA have a requirement to read
> all messages to the "official" list. That's the only part of "official" I
> think has any practical consequences here.

  Currently there are NO LEGITIMATELY ELECTED Officers of the
DNSO GA or NC as the past elections rules were violated and the
DNSO GA List admin. along with the pNC/NC acted improperly
and SELECTIVELY CENSORED members and other "Interested
Parties" from participating so that they could vote.

>
>
> I agree that both archives are part of the records of the DNSO.
>
> I choose not to reply to your point 3) at the present time, it is too complex.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> Also untrue. The proposal is for multiple SAAs.
> However, each is capable of acting on his own.
>
> >   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.
>
> Agree, as soon as we have agreement on a voting mechanism.
> I believe it is unreasonable to expect to be able to elect officers before
> having a voting mechanism.
>
> >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).
>
> Disagree, for reasons stated before - mainly that I think there are
> situations where the SAAs may reasonably choose to be more lenient than the
> formula suggested would allow them to be.
>
> >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.
>
> Agree in principle (possibly not in the details), as soon as we have a
> voting mechanism in place.
>
> However, we cannot do any of this NOW.
>
>                           Harald A
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k 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:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208