Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I repost that mail which has not hit the list for some reason.

Dear all,
After consideration and due consultation, I wish to make the following 
comments;

1) this decision is not valid since the rules - as WXW noted it - have not 
been followed. However I understand that this constestation has no value 
since only a vote of the GA could decide of it. Since a vote calls for an 
acknowledged motion by the Chair, a vote cannot occur and the GA is under 
the control of the list monitor(s) without any possible arbitration.

2) this decision does not affect the "full" ML version. So I will continue 
enjoyng Eric's interesting  posts.

3) the reason given "excessive use of abusive language not relevant to 
technical discussion" is very odd. It would mean that should the excessive 
use of abusive language be relevant to technical discussion it would have 
been acceptable. What is strange enough. But how may a list monitor 
designated to control the language abuse be competent in evaluating what is 
relevant to a technical discussion. All the more than this ML is about 
evaluating what is relevant to the technical management of the DNS by the 
iCANN. So the whole issue of the list is a discussion of this very topic. 
This reason would institute a filtering or a censorship of the ML.

4) from reading the quoted mails, I find that the recurrent theme of Mr. 
Dierker is - according to him - a failure to manage by the Chairs. From 
participating to this ML I did not notice that Chairs have appropriately 
responded to Mr. Dierker neither positively nor negatively, nor even 
acknowledged the repeated complaints that the list monitor has acknowledged 
for his own part. IMHO if the Chair is not responsible for the form of the 
first complaints (I do not consider here if Mr. Dierker is right or 
wrong),  he *is* responsbible by his silence for the repetition of Mr. 
Diecker posts and most probably for the increase in terms Mr. Diecker has 
used for attracting the attention of the Chair and in response of the lack 
of comment by the Chair.

5) may be my Frenglish, but it is not clear to me that list monitor is sure 
or not that Mr. Dierker received a warning. What makes the whole decision 
still more confusing. The list monitor says "I understand that Eric has 
received a warning". The question is: "has him or has him received a 
warning be certain in the monitors mind", if not the suspension would be an 
abuse.

6) in this ruling Kristy did obviously well in difficult 
circumstances.Thank you for having accepted and carrying that difficult 
task. But this could be used for some decorum reminder. Such a ruling is a 
justice decision, everywhere associated with some decorum. I therefore 
suggest that the Chair stabilizes a form the list monotors might use so 
that the concerned person is always named by his title, his forname and his 
name.

I therefore suggest:
- that list monitors have carried their responsibilities, specialy Mrs 
Kristy McKee.
- that they have been confronted to an abnormal situation they handled as a 
group
- that the Chairs should take the necessary steps for this not to happen again
   - neither should a Member be obliged to call repetedly to the Chair in 
vain, even harshly
   - nor should list monitors feel obligated to decide in group
- that Mrs. Kristy McKee accepts an appeal and relieves Mr. Dierker from 
the sentence.
- that the Chairs should either remove the sentence or share it with Mr. 
Dierker..

Jefsey


On 01:09 06/05/01, Kristy McKee said:
>Eric & All Assembly Members,
>
>The List Monitor Committee has determined that Eric Dierker's posting 
>privileges will be suspended for two weeks beginning today Saturday May 5 
>until Saturday May 19, 2001.
>
>I am hopeful we agree to the decision made concerning Eric's use of 
>language on the list April 19th and 20th (April 5th & 8th are being 
>overlooked since he was a candidate at that time and presumably 
>campaigning) as many complaints have been received against Eric's posts.
>
>If you disagree, please review the rules you agreed to when you signed up 
>prior to beginning a discussion. 
>[http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html]
>
>Complaints were received about:
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01032.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01039.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01046.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01050.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01069.html
>
>After reviewing the complaints and many messages, we discovered the 
>reoccurring theme mentioned in the various complaints, which is the 
>excessive use of abusive language not relevant to technical 
>discussion.  In addition there are many personal attacks, insinuations, 
>and much of the commentary lacks clarity and good intention.
>
>I understand Eric has already received a warning for this behavior.  It is 
>the practiced policy for him to receive a two week suspension beginning 
>today, May 5, 2001.  I look forward to his participation in the group 
>again this May 19th, 2001.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Kristy McKee
>--
>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

--
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