Re: [ga-abuse] 'Office-bearers' and posting limits

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

Hi Alexander

Thank you for your comments.  I think your procedure (described below) is
the only one properly allowable within the rules as they exist at present.

I have always followed that procedure, personally, and did not accept when
someone (I think one of the list monitors -- perhaps Bruce James) said the
Chair and Alt Chair were exempted from the excess posting limit.  I always
try hard to comply.  I hope I succeed.

Others accepted an exemption but I did not.  For the very same reason that I
cannot accept William Lovell's argument about having TEN posts per day.

For a lawyer he has a very poor idea about jurisprudence.  He has said, in
his most recent post, that the rules *should have* been changed and why
weren't they.  Duh !!

As should be obvoious to anyone, getting the rules changed requires a vote
of the General Assembly.  Unless the task is delegated to the GA-RULES
sublist.

The posting that (may have - I'm not sure) exceeded the limit was a
statement by the Alt Chair in response to a member unilaterally choosing to
exceed the posting limit explaining to him why he can't do that.  It was not
principally a personal opinion as shown by Alexander's similar response.

The post was designated an official post by me.  I indicated that by using
the title Alternate Chair in the "from" part of the message.

However, it is interesting how the trolls attack any chink in one's armour
:-)

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>
To: <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:00 AM
Subject: [ga-abuse] 'Office-bearers' and posting limits


>
> Hello once more!
>
> Since Jefsey and Sandy complained, it looks like
> we may need something according to which we can
> separate official and individual postings for
> office-bearers such as
> -- GA Chair and Alternate Chair
> -- DNSO Secretariat
> -- GA Representatives on Task Forces
> -- Chairs of Working Groups
> -- List monitors
> -- Election watchdogs
> -- did I forget someone?
>
> I would suggest something along the lines that
> (1) In the view of the list monitors, holding an
> office does /not/ generally release the poster from
> the posting limit.
> (2) However, postings made as part of the duties of
> office will not be counted towards the posting limit.
> Such postings may *for example* include:
> -- announcements regarding nominations, votes or
>    voting results,
> -- announcements regarding the publication of
>    documents,
> -- announcements regarding the status and results
>    of task forces or working groups,
> -- announcements regarding the monitoring of posts,
>    suspension of voting rights or overturning of
>    suspensions, or
> -- explanations and reminders regarding administrative
>    issues such as the status of motions.
> This list shall illustrate that such excluded postings
> should be predominantly factual statements to the GA
> members. Postings stating solely personal opinions
> are not excluded from the posting limit.
> (3) The poster should make it clear that the posting
> is intended to be official (e.g. in the subject line
> or signature or by using a different sender name).
>
> ?
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>