Re: [ga-abuse] Agreement on Procedures

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 09:03 25.04.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>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.

Patrick,
I have trouble parsing what you are saying.
What the procedures say currently are that the messages have to appear on 
the GA list before we can do anything about them.
This has nothing to do with whether people are subscribed to ga or to ga-full.
The words "posting from ga-full" make no sense to me - I never post FROM a 
mailing list, I post TO a mailing list. And no messages are ever sent 
directly to ga-full, AFAIK.


>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.

Jim Fleming is, AFAIK, not a GA member.
Joe Baptista is, and his voting rights are suspended.

>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.

They have rights, being persons. I think we have to hear them.
Of course, we can reject their petitions (I have dozens of complaints from 
Jeff Williams in past ga-archive files).

>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 have commonly ignored/refused complaints that I felt were not made in 
good faith, or where agreeing to the complaint with an exclusion would be 
felt as an unreasonable reaction.

One exclusion was made after a complaint by Jeff Williams, I seem to remember.


>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.

What I proposed is somewhat simpler. But we DO need a secretary to keep track.


>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.

I think a week is too slow in the normal case. Something about psychology 
and "early reinforcement". My reaction time since the election has been 
abysmal, and absolutely damaging to the list; my only excuse is that I did 
not want to act on my own.


>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.

I'd appreciate comments.