Re[2]: [ga] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:22:14 PM, you wrote:

> William,

>> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:23 PM
>> 
>> Someone on here (Roeland?) said the IDNO had embraced diversity and/or
>> dissent.

> I don't recognise those words.

Perhaps it was Dennis.

>> Well I think you can put that argument to rest.  It appears that since
>> I voted against the current Charter I have been revoked (or at least
>> my access to the polling booth was).
>> 
>> And lest anyone believe that the IDNO should be a constituency, let me
>> draw your attention to this portion of their charter :

> First of all, this is not a DNSO/GA issue. It's an IDNO internal issue.

The IDNO has purported itself (well, its owner has purported) to be
attempting to get the IDNO recognized as a constituency.  This has
direct bearing on that issue, and that makes it a GA issue, especially
since this point has been a matter of some discussion on this list
recently.

>> Section 4.11 Loss of membership
>> 
>> I'll paraphrase this part, basically, any five members complaining
>> about any member force a vote on the member's right to continue being
>> a member.

> This is a direct result of past disruptive behavior.

There is a vast different between rules of behavior and revocation of
membership.  One can have rules of civil behavior (ala the GA right
now), without having to include language that effectively lets less
than half of the membership remove anyone for any reason.

>> Then:
>> 
>> 4.11.3 The list -Assembly members together, if they number less than
>> 100, form the Fair Hearing panel. After the accusation and the
>> defense, if any has been put forward, have been made available to
>> them, the Fair Hearing panel will be called to vote within 10 days. A
>> simple majority will decide on expulsion.
>> 
>> Basically less than half the membership can cause the expulsion of any
>> member.
>> 
>> The IDNO is not created to embrace diversity or dissent.  It is set up
>> to permit the owner (and have no doubt about it, he is an owner, not
>> simply a founder) to oust anyone who seriously challenges him and his
>> positions.
>> 
>> No constituency would ever be adopted which contains such rules, and
>> makes it so easy and simply to nullify the membership of other
>> constituency members.

> I disagree, in the face of determined disruption, the organization must
> protect its own right to maintain order and decorum from those that
> would paralyze the organization with chaotic and disruptive behaviour.
> Animals need not be catered to. One behaves in civilized fashion or one
> gets thrown out on their ear. This very GA list also practices that same
> principle and for the same reason.

An organization purporting itself to be a constituency which, by its
nature is the vehicle for expressions of one's rights, does not avail
itself of the means for removing its members so easily, and thus
effectively revoking their rights.

And, as noted above, there is a VAST difference between rules of civil
behavior, and enforcement of means of discipline short of banishment,
which is what the GA practices, and what the owner of the IDNO is
creating in order to prevent anyone who disagreed with him from having
a voice.

Further, he has shown by his very actions tonight that he has not
abandoned his repeated tendency to take unilateral action without
consultation, which tendency goes back to long before the split on the
IDNO Steering Committee (remember when he, after supposedly abdicating
in favor of the steering committee) practically ordered the removal of
Jeff Williams by the list manager without further consultation by the
Steering Committee?  It was only swift action by some SC members who
saw the problem with what Joop was ordering, and his not feeling
secure enough to rock the SC boat yet, that prevented that from
happening.  And then there is his refusal to place matters up for vote
by the steering committee, and intentionally delaying such votes, in
an effort to prevent them from coming forward, simply because he, a
non-member of said committee, did not agree with the issue.

In one action, Joop has acted on his own behalf in removing the voting
rights and access of a member of the IDNO, without consultation, and
without any authority under his so called charter.  He has repeated
shown his disdain for process, and from where I sit, I see that
nothing has changed.  Even this (very, very flawed) charter I have
very little faith that he will stick to it, except where it will suit
his purposes.   Where it doesn't suit his purposes, he will do as he
has always done, and act on his own behalf, take unilateral action,
and ignore the process.  Just like he did tonight.

This is not about personality, this is about reality.  Even setting
aside the issue of a constituency status NOT being granted to an
organization (no other constituency was formed that way), the IDNO is
tainted by the above issues, and by his own actions, he has shown that
nothing has changed in that regard.


-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


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