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

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

Hi Elizabeth

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

Thank you.  Your views are constructive and much appreciated.

> 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.

That is our hope.

> 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.

I agree.  My phrasing was ambiguous to allow for a diversity of four
different possibilities.  I wrote:

> > (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.

Thus the DNSO Secretariat OR the Chair could notify the person.
As well the DNSO Secretariat OR the Chair could notify the list

My writing style was influenced by a programming background.  I wanted
Danny's general approval -- the actual procedure to be used was deliberately
left *open*.

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

When policy is set, it mist be done up front.  However, it is permissible,
in some cases, to make a dual announcement in the form:

    The Panel has considered the issue carefully and determined
    that the most appropriate course would be to continue the
    suspension . . . etc etc . . . As a result, both Mr Williams and
    Mr Baptista will remain suspended . . . ."

As you say, we may need to co-ordinate these activities carefully.

> 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.

I think perhaps "proliferic" is not right here but I do understand your
meaning.  But even in the United States, there must be some legal basis to
mount a case.

I'm simply setting up a scenario to continue to suspend two people who were
already suspended and for which there is no present policy.  Until a policy
is decided using the list framework that we have set up for that very
purpose !!!

What amazes me is why it should be so much hard work to suspend people who
are already suspended ;-)

> 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.

That's fine.  But we still must wait for Danny's approval.  Then I'll draft
a note and refer it to him for confirmation.  After that I'll liaise with
you about posting it ;-)

> 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.

It's a matter of politics.  If we announce to the list that we have
introduced a new policy to suspend him when he's alrready been suspended,
people will argue.  The default position is that he will continue to post to
the sublists.

That's the wrong way round.  He is suspended.  The default position should
be that he does NOT post.  Then we can discuss the policy.

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

Me too, if you think I am sharp.  But this is very tiresome.  So far,
including some postings which were complained about, I have 321 postings in
my folder for GA-ABUSE.  Just reading them is a burden.

Meanwhile I'm looking for emails I wrote about some of the complaints.  As
well I have not yet arranged funding to go to Stockholm.

By then nothing will be achieved except a couple of suspensions.
And then only of the two people who are already suspended !!

It's already clear that everybody else is going to get a warning.
As this includes every malpractice imaginable I'm disappointed.

Best regards
Patrick