[ga-abuse] Re: [ga-rules] About list monitoring

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

Hi William

A request has been made on several occasions that discussions about list
monitoring are best conducted on [ga-rules] and not [ga] or [ga-abuse].  I'd
appreciate it if you would assist in that respect.

As far as your substantive point, there are only two list monitors at
present.  One makes the decision and the other generally concurs.  I can
only remember one occasion where the two monitors disagreed.

My view is that delay are caused more by the volume of complaints, the
discussion on [ga-abuse] and the need for co-ordination with the DNSO
Secretariat to implement sanctions.

Best regards
Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
To: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>
Cc: <ga-rules@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ga-rules] About list monitoring


> Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 11:42:04 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > With more than one list monitor, a clear majority of monitors
> > has to agree with the proposed action. Ties and complaints
> > involving one of the list monitors have in the past been resolved
> > with the help of the Alternate Chair. All suspensions have to
> > be coordinated with and implemented by the DNSO List Administrator.
>
> > While the list monitors try their utmost to make quick decisions,
> > sometimes the complexity of a case, the need for well-founded
> > and agreed decisions and the time needed for coordination and
> > implementation lead to some delays. Please bear in mind that
> > most list monitors are in fact humans after all.
>
>
> Of all lists that have rules of civil discourse and moderator
> enforcement, this is the only one that does that by committee.  It is
> also the one with the longest lag time between rules breach and
> enforcement, when enforcement is done at all.  The lag time makes the
> enforcement virtually useless.
>
> The Chair has indicated that he is not enforcing this "rule by
> committee/majority" and that this is simply a decision the moderators
> made themselves, and are thus free to discard it.
>
> You should discard it.  The rules already provide for a safety valve
> in the form of an appeal to the chair.
>
> Now, if the moderators lack the tools to enforce the rules, then a
> technical solution needs to be found where they can accomplish that.
>
> If the Alt-chair (who was removed as a moderator by the chair, and
> thus should have nothing to do with this process) is involved, then we
> have another set of issues that need to be looked at.  If the
> alt-chair is the only one who can implement the decisions, then he
> needs to either be more accessible, or that duty needs to be
> redelegated.
>
> Rules of civil discourse must always be enforced swiftly.  Not rashly,
> but swiftly.  If decisions are taking more than a week from the
> violation, then there is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
>
> If the "committee" decision making is contributing to the delays,
> then it needs to be eliminated.  If the delay has other causes, then
> we need to know what they are so that they can be eliminated and/or
> minimized.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>