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

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 04:44 17/04/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
[joanna]
>>>With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.
> [JT]
>> 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?
>
>
William, please!
The Chairs are unpaid volunteers. The GA list has elected them.
Participants on the list who respect democracy should give them enough
latitude to do their job as they see fit.

Accusing them of inappropriate actions should only take place when their
action is so seriously in conflict with the best interests of the GA as a
whole that a motion of no-confidence would likely succeed. It should be
done on -list.
Threatening a chair privately with "a concerted campaign" is not acceptable
"list" (in the broader sense) behaviour.
IMHO.

>> 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.
>
I see no evidence (yet) that we have elected bad Chairs.

>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. 

Playing semantics. What you wrote privately came across  as a challenge and
a  threat. 

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.
>

That is something that needs to be addressed. Just like the GA should have
the right to elect its own chair, a procedure for the recall of a chair
should also remain in the hands of the GA. 
A "concerted" campaign by two individuals complaining to the NC should not
be able to remove a chair or induce him to resign. 
Fortunately, the Chairs themselves can call for a no-confidence vote and
abide by its outcome, making NC action unnecessary.
But pushing him to do this over a trivial action of attempted
list-moderation is not in the interest of most of us assembled here.

--joop

--
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