[ga-abuse] Re: URGENT - List Panel Protocols

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Dear All,
Dear new Chairs,

Being explicitely mention in the proposed, let me add my personnal
comments.

The authority for the GA belongs to the elected Chair and Alternate.
They announce publicly any decision, and they do it in such
a way they may withstand all arrows and critics.

I do not wish that any procedure might suggest the Secretariat
is taking decision. 
To state it differently, I am ready to assume my mistakes,
but not yours. 

My experience since two years with these wildcats indicates me
they hold in abhorrence anything not state up front.

You risk to see the flurry of protest emails if you do not
proceed this way, and some US lawyers might be the most proliferic
on that one.

The policy SHOULD be announced to the GA before implementation.
We may do it simultaneously - I mean you tell me at which
hour you intend to post your note, and I will be on line to
synchronize with you.

I feel quite strange myself, European, to give that comment
to you - my European perception is that stating up front things
is fairness. I figured out it is understood that way even stronger
on the other side of Atlantic River.

My best regards,
Elisabeth
(NB. Sorry for stating it sharp, it is not intended to be offensive)

--
> From patrick@corliss.net Thu May  3 14:35 MET 2001
> Message-ID: <014f01c0d3ce$3b192040$8ce9fea9@hamza>
> From: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>
> To: "Danny Younger" <webmaster@babybows.com>
> Cc: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>,
>         "[ga-abuse]" <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
> Subject: URGENT - List Panel Protocols
> Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:40:26 +1000
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
> 
> On Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:23 PM (AEST), Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Subject: [ga-abuse] Re: Posting Rights - Six New Mailing Lists
> 
> 
> > At 00:13 03.05.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > >As a majority of three list monitors have agreed, I will advise Elisabeth
> to
> > >suspend Jeff Williams and Joe Baptista from the six new mailing lists.
> >
> > This decision must be published to the GA - saying it is a job for the
> > chairs, I think. Any debate should be done on ga-int, I think.
> > And suspensions on the new lists should wait until the policy has been
> > announced.
> 
> Hi Danny
> 
> Four out of five list monitors (i.e. all except Harald) have agreed that a
> person suspended from the main list should be suspended from all sublists.
> There are two such persons viz.  Jeff Williams and Joe Baptista.  Now we
> have agreed I'd like to implement this decision.
> 
> I am concerned that Jeff Williams is posting his head off while we, the
> lists monitors, discuss what to do.  The longer we wait, the more likely it
> will be that we appear arbitrary.  Meanwhile, unless advised otherwise, Joe
> Baptista will assume he is still suspended.
> 
> Harald thinks that this policy should first be published to the GA list.  I
> disagree but wish to consult with you as Chair.  I suggest the following
> protocols:
> 
> (1)    A majority of the panel of list monitors can make decisions relating
> to the the main GA list or any of its sublists in respect of:
> 
>     (a)    the procedures to be adopted by the panel in making its decision,
> and
>     (b)    the posting rights of persons subscribed to any of these lists.
> 
> (2)    That such decisions can be conveyed to the DNSO Secretariat who will
> implement them accordingly.
> 
> (3)    That either the DNSO Secretariat or the Co-Chair will then notify the
> relevant person and/or the GA List generally of the decision.
> 
> (4)    That all decisions made by the panel of list monitors, whether
> considered policy of practice, are appealable to the Chair by the person
> affected.
> 
> My view is decisions by a majority of the Panel are likely to be
> well-considered.  Respect for the Chair is maintained if he remains above
> the debate. However, the Chair may intervene at any time when he considers
> it would be equitable or appropriate.
> 
> The list procedures are certain to be debated on the [ga-int] mailing list
> but I would rather have a fairly simple protocol in the meantime.  Stockholm
> is coming very soon and we really do need to get the rest of the debate onto
> a proper foundation.
> 
> At present, for example, William X. Walsh is arguing that we need to agree
> that there is even a problem in respect of the alt roots before we consider
> any policy recommendations.  If we have to poll members just to agree that
> there is a problem this is just added delay.
> 
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
>