Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 4/17/01 5:33 AM, Joop Teernstra at terastra@terabytz.co.nz wrote:


>> 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 behavior.

For me, this issue is not about private insults on the list, it is about how
the GA should deal with complaints against its officers.

This distinction might be helpful:-
. 
1) What is said between two or more members of the General Assembly in the
course of private correspondence is of no concern to other members, whether
or not the contents relate to GA business. This would be a personal matter
subject to privacy concerns and should not be posted to the public archive
unless the contents are subject to other rules in force relating to
professional disclosure (to be agreed).

2) What is said by an officer of the GA in the course of undertaking their
duties, is of concern to other GA members. Officers represent not only
themselves, but also they represent the GA as a whole by their actions.
While it is both desirable and necessary for officers to communicate in
private from time to time, as they see fit, the method of communication
should not have a bearing on the standards the GA can reasonably expect
their officers to meet. In an organization that is run in an open and
transparent manner, an officer commenting on GA business cannot expect to
find sanctuary in rules related to matters of personal privacy.

Whether or not the procedure that was followed in this particular instance
is considered the best way to deal with a complaint against an officer of
the GA is a matter of debate, but I suggest a formal procedure must be
established to avoid possible future misunderstandings, as clearly there is
not one in place on which all have agreed.


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

I agree, which is why everybody needs to be absolutely clear about what are
the correct procedures at their disposal when something goes wrong. Even
Chairs should be subject to sanctions, but equally, they should be extended
the same courtesy as every other member in that respect- private evaluation
of the complaint by a small group of their peers.

Personally, I would have thought it better to push a complaint against an
officer *upwards* to another officer, (in this case, to the Chair for
comment and guidance), rather than pushing it *downwards* to the GA, (which
inevitably causes disruption, hostility and even instability on the list).

In the almost inconceivable circumstances that both Chairs and all three (or
more) list moderators would be the subject of complaints at the same time,
then, and only then, would I suggest consulting the GA openly as a "last
resort".

Just a few thoughts.

Regards,
Joanna
> 
> -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