[ga-abuse] Re: More names to ga-abuse?

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Thank you, Harald.

If nobody objects, I'd like to use the [ga-abuse] list as our medium for
communication in relation to list matters generally.  Everybody knows we are
human and I don't see any problem with future List Monitors being able to review
our progress.

I presume from your comments that you are a little jaded after your stint as
Co-Chair and List Monitor and would like to have a well-earned rest.  I
understand that Bruce James is interested but I'm not sure about Alexander.
I'll ask him separately.

Whilst I understand your reservations about the Co-Chair being the List Monitor,
I think that doubt is dispelled when there are three persons involved.  Should
we have three reponsible persons other than myself I will simply provide a
watching role.

As far as changing the list rules, I would like to improve them a little if I
can.  For one thing I'd like to avoid the situation where people offer to
transfer posts between themselves as that's just a nonsense.  The Chair can
decide to extend privileges.

However, there are other issues of importance and I understand the Chair is now
in the process of formulating an agenda.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
Cc: Roberto Gaetano <ga_chair@hotmail.com>; Danny Younger
<webmaster@babybows.com>; Elisabeth Porteneuve
<Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: More names to ga-abuse?


> At 09:14 16.04.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >Hi Roberto
> >
> >Thank you, I'm subscribed to [ga-abuse].  The archives for this list do
> >not show
> >up on the dnso.org website so it is hard to guess who's on the list.  At the
> >moment it looks to me like the above five people, including myself.  Is this
> >correct?
>
> Yes. The archives are not public, but Elisabeth can get them if you need to
> see what has been there before.
>
> >If so, should we discuss these issues on the [ga-abuse] mailing list
> >instead of privately?
>
> The abuse list has traditionally been used only to discuss specific abuse
> cases. But it's your problem to decide now :-)
>
> >About the substantive issue you raised, I believe we should have three list
> >monitors and suggest Harald, Bruce James, Alexander Svensson and myself as
> >possible contenders.  This would allow a majority of two out of three to
> >decide.
>
> Agreed (modulo previous reservations). I had some heartburn with the
> possible conflict between alt-chair and list monitor; if we have enough
> monitors, I would detach the roles from each other.
>
> >My feeling is that there are built-in safeguards with a majority system:
> >
> >(1)    avoids any historical personal antagonism
> >(2)    restrains the list moderator's enthusiasm in the role
> >(3)    allows a bit of unbiased discussion and sensible input
> >(4)    seen by members and outsiders as much fairer system
> >(5)    reduces likelihood of argument and unwarranted appeals
> >(6)    fewer appeals allows Chair to keep above the in-fighting.
> >
> >The only problem is can we get three list moderators?  Should these be
> >elected?
> >Personally I would prefer not to elect everybody unless the rules require
> >it to be done !!
>
> At the moment, list monitors serve at the pleasure of the chair; no
> election needed. This was done because we did the list rules before we did
> any election rules, and because I think it makes sense. Details are in the
> list rules.
> Note: List rules need a 2/3 majority vote to change....
>
> (I think it should be possible to remove a list monitor by resolution of
> the GA, however - this would be easy to add later.)
>
> My inclination would be to have Danny accept Alexander and Bruce to the
> list of monitors, and that I be allowed to resign from the post in a month
> or so. This should provide for some overlap, and leave the job in someone
> else's hands after a while!
>
>