[ga-abuse] Agreement on Procedures

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

Hi List Monitors

First we have to agree on proper procedures.  I have been advised that we
are unable to adjudicate on complaints made against persons currently
suspended when they are posting from the [ga-full] mailing list.

At present I believe that's Jeff Williams and William X. Walsh.  I'd ask
Harald if he could advise the status of Jim Fleming, please.

As they have lost their posting rights, it is impractical to allow them to
propose or second motions as we cannot "see" their postings.  It so happens
that I am subscribed to [ga-full] but I could easily subscribe to the
ordinary [ga] and not see them either.  As well, many people have filters on
to block people who post abusive emails (most likely to be those people who
are suspended).

The next question is:  If we do not recognise complaints AGAINST them,
should we recognise complainst BY them?  They do come to our attention if
the are posted to [ga-abuse] as required.  Jeff Williams, for example, who
commonly uses an alias or "alter ego" has complained about Kent Crispin
doing the same.

In this particularly case, it does not matter as Roeland Meyer has made the
same complaint.  However, we ought to consider the issue.  Whilst it might
not be sensible to accept a complaint from somebody who has been suspended,
we might have to consider it anyway.  In fact the identity of the
complainant should not matter if we are considering complaints on their
merits.

The only time that would become an issue if complaints are not made in good
faith.  In this case Jeff Williams had a valid complaint that his name was
forged (perhaps as a joke) by Kent Crispin.

Perhaps Harald can advise past practice in this respect, please?

I would also suggest that even though we have a committee of five it would
be very cumbersome for all of us to adjudicate on every complaint.  We could
decide once we have a quorum of three.  If we list all the complaints, and
all vote against each, somebody will need to prepare the list and collate
the results.  This will be a chore, imo.

Kristy has said that she would prefer to do the list monitoring one day a
week, say Friday.  Unless in urgent cases such as a flame war, I'd agree
that we could do the task once a week.  Perhaps we could try that to start.
I don't think everybody expects an instant decision anyway.

Finally Harald has suggested a procedure.  I believe you've all seen it but
it's repeated below.  I'm not sure I agree but I haven't had time to analyse
it deeply.  I'd also like to see what others think.

Best rregards
Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>
To: <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:08 AM
Subject: [ga-abuse] Proposal: procedures for handling complaints


[this is a resend, since the new moderators are now on-list]
Hi folks,
there now being five moderators, the old system (Harald sees complaint,
Harald thinks, Harald acts, Harald records) does not work any more.

Having thought for a while, I propose that we adopt the following INFORMAL
rule for handling complaints in the ga-abuse list:

1) A complaint is received on the ga-abuse alias.
2) One of the monitors (M1, the first one to get around to it) investigates
    the complaint, and sends out a message to the ga-abuse list ONLY,
saying:
    - What the complaint is (From, About, Victim, Rule infringed)
    - The URL to the posting(s) in the archives
    - What he thinks should be done (Warning, Suspension for N weeks)
3) Any monitor who DISAGREES with the proposal posts ASAP to the ga-abuse
    list, stating his reasons for disagreeing. If there is disagreement,
    the ga-abuse list must discuss until we have a clear majority in favour
    of a single course of action.
4) When 24 hours have passed since the first monitor's message without any
    protest, or when the monitors have reached agreement, a monitor who
AGREES
    with the proposal (M2) sends a message to the ga-abuse list saying
    "I will take care of this".
    He then sends a message to the complainant, CC ga-abuse, stating the
    complaint and the monitors' action.
    If it is a suspension, the GA list will also get
    a copy. If it is a warning, the person complained about gets a copy.
    The subject prefix [ADMIN] is used on the message.
    When the action is a suspension, M2 will contact the list keeper
(currently
    Elisabeth) and ensure that the filter is installed before sending the
    email.
5) The GA-abuse secretarty (log keeper) records the action in the list of
    actions, noting the identity of M1 and M2.

M1 and M2 must be different, and neither can be the complainant or the
complained-about party.

In the normal case, where everything is clear, this should make it possible
to treat most complaints within 2 days.

Comments?

(If people are happy with this, I will divide my long list of unresolved
complaints into single messages, acting as M1 for each, and waiting for
someone to be M2).

                   Harald