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

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

Hello Patrick,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 9:18:30 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> It was then that William Walsh decided to intervene.

Wrong. I responded to your INITIAL message, in which you were
practically issuing a direct request for people to file complaints,
and indicated a gross over stretching view of the rules.

That alone I found irresponsible.


> I therefore decided to write privately to William along the following lines:

>> You are not in a position to judge how many complaints are received on
>> a daily basis in respect of comments such as these.  The fact that people
>> are disposed to make complaints suggests that the issue of "ad hominem"
>> attacks is a matter of concern.

>> The posting by Kent Crispin falls into the category of making comments
>> of a personal nature.  It suggests that Michael Froomkin is biased.  Chris
>> Ambler's response was unfair as he attributed to Kent Crispin what was
>> said by Dave Crocker.

>> All you are doing is undermining the integrity of the list.

> I find there is nothing objectionable in these explanatory comments.  They are
> clearly reasonable and private.  I concluded my remarks by saying:

First of all, when you address any member in your role as alternative
chair, and especially when that is done on the issue of list
moderation, you have no expectation that such an address will be kept
private.

Secondly, the last line is the first thing I took exception to.

Thirdly, you indicated that comments were violating the rules simply
because they were of a "personal nature."  The list rules do not
include such a reference,and your messages were clearly an intent to
broaden those rules without any consensus or approval of the assembly
itself.

It was therefore appropriate that those actions be brought to the
list.

>> If you want to discuss the rules, please do so without discussing cases
>> which may come before the List Monitors.  I'll post an extract of the rules
>> onlist.

> Clearly William took objection to this request. There are two important issues
> involved.  One is that further discussion would interfere with the List Monitors
> ability to adjudicate.  Another is the general trend to argument on the list.

When the discussion goes directly to the suitability of a Chair, and
to the overextension of rules that could result in someone being
barred from posting to the list, the general trend SHOULD be to
discuss those things on list.

> It is really not sensible to be inundated with complaints from everybody when it
> is not at all clear who started, who responded and who makes it worse.  It would
> lead, in the worst case, to a general suspension of too many people.

Only in your broaden view of the rules.  You have repeatedly on other
lists emailed numerous people (some of whom are on this list also and
have emailed me privately in the last 12 hours) indicating to them
that they should stop certain threads, or restrict their postings. You
have a history of trying to assert some personal moral code on the
discussions in these forums.  Now that you are in a position to impose
sanctions, it is a very real concern, especially when so early you
already show a gross misinterpretation of the rules, and a tendency to
expand them beyond your authority.

> In my view, William has made several unsupported criticisms.  The basic rule
> says "respect to the participants is mandatory".   Note the word "respect".

My criticisms are well supported by the posts indicated.

> The rule continues to say that "messages must observe a minimum of decorum,
> including not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander."

And none of that has occurred here.

> It is easy to see that this rule has been breached.   In particular I find that
> my moderate, private letter to William X. Walsh was reposted to the list (in
> itself not showing respect to the list participants) and mischaracterised as:

You have no respect of privacy when acting as chair and when the
subject is that you are requesting that certain subjects not be
discussed, especially when you carry the ability to impose sanctions
as a result.

> (a)    exceeding my authority

This was documented, and not mischaracterized.

> (b)   demanding and unreasonable

This was documented, and not mischaracterized.

> (c)    inappropriate and improper

This was documented, and not mischaracterized.

> (d)    outside the scope of the rules

This was documented, and not mischaracterized.

> (e)    an expansion of my role

This was documented, and not mischaracterized.

> As well, having identified a lack of "respect to the participants" my attempt to
> moderate the onlist behaviour was subsequently undermined as I predicted.

Only by yourself, Patrick.

> Bringing the Co-Chair into disrepute allowed other participants to engage in the
> same behaviour.  I have tried very hard to show due respect to my critics.

You brought it on yourself, the point was made BEFORE THE ELECTION
that the role of the GA Chair was NOT to be a mandate for a
"platform."  Apparently our Chair and alternate chair ignored that.


> What is improper however, is to threaten, badger and bully me to perform my role
> in a manner subservient to any member of this list.

No one did that.

You were directed to do your duty, which does not include you pushing
your own platform for change, or broadening rules on your own
initiative, to to direct people not to discuss certain subjects,
particularly those that related to list moderation.

Specificly subjects of list moderations, including specific incidents,
ARE IN FACT on topic and relevant to the list.

>> As you have challenged and threatened me on the very first occasion I tried to
>> bring some moderation to the list, I would ask you to propose a motion of
>> no-confidence in the Co-Chair.

> Mr Walsh has since replied to the effect that this is not possible.  In the
> circumstances, he can take whatever action he feels is appropriate.

There is no such provision.  The Names Council appointed you, the only
way to remove you is for you to step down, or for the Names Council to
replace you.

> My view is that this sort of behaviour wastes everybody's time.  I cannot
> understand why mature, sensible and intelligent people should try so hard to
> sabotage our efforts to progress the agenda of the General Assembly.

If only that was what you were doing.   You were not doing that, you
were progressing your own agenda.

-- 
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