[ga-abuse] Fwd: Fw: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols

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

This posting of a private email is a violation of the list rules.

Specifically:

"The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA"

The message was directed privately for that reason.  The repost of it
without comment was clearly done without respect to the rules.

I ask the Chair to suitably warn his cochair about the consequences of
such rash actions in the future.

I remind the cochair that such actions lend credibility to the
included criticism, and thank him for providing an example of the sort
of insuitability I was suggesting.


This is a forwarded message
From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 1:17:38 AM
Subject: Fw: [PRIVATE]  List Rules and Protocols

===8<==============Original message text===============
----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols


> Hello Patrick,
>
> Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 12:28:22 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > All you are doing is undermining the integrity of 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.
>
> Toss something like this at me again, and not only will I make sure it
> is publicly documented as I did this time, but I will start a serious
> concerted campaign to have the Names Council replace you, something
> that will not help the "integrity of the list."
>
> I consider your comments above to be absolutely and totally
> inappropriate from someone in your position.
>
> You should ask yourself if you really are that well suited to this
> position, and if you are not, then you should consider stepping down.
>
> It is not your role, or within your power, to seek an extension of the
> rules by overextending their interpretation.
>
> Nor is it appropriate to tell someone to not discuss specific
> instances when the subject of the rules come up.
>
> The question of whether you understood what the role of the GA chairs
> was came up during the election, when it seemed you think it was a
> mandate for you to carry our your own agenda.
>
> That is NOT the case.  If I even suspect that is occurring, the Names
> Council will begin hearing my concerns, and others will be asked to do
> the same if they find themselves in agreement with me.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com
>
>

===8<===========End of original message text===========



-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com