Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

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

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 2:33:58 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 04:13 17/04/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>Not everybody was present when the rules were formulated, understands what
>>they were "intended" to be or has the benefit of second sight.
>>
>>As set down, they seem to fairly vague:-
>>
>>With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.

> Good point. Private threats or insults against an elected  list Chair
> should be sanctioned like other bad list behaviour. 

But out of line demands by a Chair off list to participants is ok?  It
is bad "list" behavior to complain about inappropriate actions?


> It is very easy to lose a list Chair and without Chairs we cannot go forward.
> These are threats that concern us all.

With a bad list Chair we cannot go forward either.

The threat is that the ALTERNATE Chair feels it is his position to
expand his role and the list rules without approval by us, and that he
can send demands to list participants to not discuss things because he
doesn't like it.

There was no threat.  There was a very carefully laid out consequence
to inappropriate behavior by this alternate chair, that if he
continued to act inappropriately that complaints would be filed. This
is ENTIRELY appropriate, and in fact it is the ONLY means of redress
against inappropriate actions by the Chair, since the GA has no
authority to "recall" or "vote no confidence" against the Chair.

And the acknowledgement and reminder that there was in fact a course
of action was sent off list, an acknowledgement that the tone may have
been inappropriate for a list post.

Therefore I did not post it to the list.  The person who did must
assume the responsibility for any resulting inappropriate post to the
list as a result of his action(s).

The role of the GA chair is a VERY limited one.  The alternate chair's
role is even more limited.  Expansion, especially into areas of list
content, without mandate from the GA itself, or at a minimum the NC,
is something that is ENTIRELY appropriate to address, on or off list,
and to have pointed out that continued attempts to do that warrant a
FULLY JUSTIFIED question and examination into that person's
suitability to continue in that role.

You may disagree with my conclusion, but the action itself was and is
appropriate.  The post made to me that sparked it was not appropriate,
and was sent privately in order to fly under the radar.  As he was
acting in his role as alternate chair, and assuming responsibilities
for list moderation, it was ENTIRELY appropriate that his message be
made public, and that he be called to justify it.

-- 
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