Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #601
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, July 9 2001             Volume 01 : Number 601

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:02:44 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, July 08, 2001, 9:32:22 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Sheesh, Danny !!

I'll just make it easy, and say that you both should just resign.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:20:31 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Lacking Perspective

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, July 08, 2001, 10:10:02 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>> Oh yes, this is so applicable to a situation of a small number of 1-2
>> post violations.

> We've had this debate before with you taking the opposite viewpoint.  It
> occurred when you were suspended for excess postings.  I said the list
> monitors should have discretion to allow one or two over the limit on the
> odd occasion.  As I remember, you argued that the rules needed to be
> enforced down the line as list monitors would abuse their discretation.

> A monitor taking that approach would have suspended everybody.
> Bill's point was that it didn't happen.  Yours was that it didn't need to.

> Both are equally valid points.  They are even supportive of the other.

There you go taking what I said out of context.

What I Advocated some time ago, was NOT that the list monitors enforce
sanctions against someone on the 6th post on any given day.

What I Advocated, Patrick, is that if the limit is going to be there,
rather than being something that someone gets SANCTIONED over, that
the limit should be enforced by the list server software, by rejecting
the 6th post, bouncing it back to the user, and then they can post it
on the next day if they so choose.

My answer to Bill was in response to the situation we have currently,
however, where the posting limit is considered an abuse situation,
rather than the technical limit situation I suggested.

So no, you have no debated this with me where I took a different view.

Far from it.

>> Please, the absence of ~20 messages over a period of a month would not
>> have made one iota of difference.

> No.  But the absence of a high-volume poster altogether would.
> It also might have acted as a deterrant for others who abuse us.

This presumes abuse.  I only say 3 people who could be said to be
"abusive" at all in that list, of them was only twice, and the other
has curbed his posting habits already.

That leaves one, and to be honest, I don't really care about him, and
I bet a majority of the rest of the GA doesn't either, as most just
filter his noise out anyway.  But even he comes in under the post
limit when you average the posts out over the month, and had only 2
days of "real" abuse.

>> Like Danny's, your comments lack a sense of perspective.

> To paraphrase a well-known dishonest argument:
> Comments don't lack perspective.  People lack perspective.

> The real perspective is that sublists solve the problem !!

No, they don't.  They actually make it worse.

What might help solve the problem is if our chairs resign, as they
have been unable to be effective in their roles at all, and the GA to
elect new chairs and that list monitors be appointed without their
hands being tied.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 01:25:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Dear Patrick,

I was responding to Joop's motion.  He labeled some of our members as 
"destabilizers and obsessives" and concluded that "we are dealing here with 
unfettered chaos, with rules that have become worthless with being 
unenforceable."

I share his assessment.  Having heard comments tonight to the effect that it 
is acceptable to regularly break the rules as long as they are not 
excessively broken on any one day, and other comments to the effect that all 
our rules are "illegitimate", I can re-affirm that Joop is correct in his 
observations.

I did not post my comments to ga-abuse, because I was hoping that an 
admonition from the Chair might serve to cut down on excessive postings.   I 
can see now that this will not be the case.  No matter what time zone you are 
in, when you see numbers like 8,10,13 posts per day, it is obvious that some 
have chosen not to respect the rules.  Those that have little respect for 
rules will typically have little respect for those that abide by the rules, 
hence the surfeit of complaints to ga-abuse.

It was my hope that we could all mutually arrive at a solution to deal with 
this problem that wouldn't have to involve the imposition of sanctions on our 
members.  As it stands, I will withdraw my suggestion and simply allow the 
list monitors to do their jobs.  If these members do not wish to curtail 
their behavior, then they will simply have to live with the consequences of 
their actions.

Perhaps when sanctions next are meted out, this Assembly will begin to return 
to order... although I am quite sure that this list will once more again be 
paralyzed by those who will feel the need to express their views on the List 
Monitors' decisions.  

I encourage the List Monitors to catch up on their backlog of cases, and to 
issue whatever sanctions are required.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:38:18 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question to Jeff Williams

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:07:06 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:
> You have argued that the rules of this Assembly are "illegitimate".   Is
> it your intention to continue violating the rules of this Assembly?

Dear Danny

Thank you for participating in the debate but that's not how it is done.

Jeff Williams has said the rules are "illegitimate".  I'd guess that
somebody drafted a set of rules based on discussion on this list.  Perhaps
there were even debates about the method of adopting the rules (voting
procedures, etc.).  Clearly you then have a boot-strap paradox.

Of course, any vote cannot be "legitimate" until the voting procedures have
been set up first.  And anyone can refute the legitimacy of a process.  Some
use this argument against the list monitors, the sublists, anything at all.

On occasions, people question the legitimacy so hard that they pull down
the system.  It happened with "apartheid" which was seen as legitimate
but immoral.  It nearly happened with the presidential election in Florida.
Certainly it happened with discrimination in Australia and the US.

Now we had this before when a person was suspended for excess postings.
He said the list limit was illegitimate because it had not been sanctioned
by
the Chair.  Nevertheless, the punishment was still enforced.  That sort of
thing happens everytime there's an execution in the US.

But none of what Jeff said is against the list rules as they are constituted
at present.  It seems to me that you break the rules of the General Assembly
by suggesting that about Jeff.

You should respect the system and submit a complaint to the list monitors?

Or do you want to make the system look REALLY illegitimate??

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:20:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question to Jeff Williams

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Jefsey,

  First off, my first name is Jeff, not Jefsey.

>
>
> You have argued that the rules of this Assembly are "illegitimate".

  Not argued, stated and proved...

>  Is it
> your intention to continue violating the rules of this Assembly?

  I do not violate any rules intentionally.  SO the only answer I can give
is no, but that if I do, it would not be intentional.  Given that the current
illegitimate rules are not one illegitimate, but they are also cryptic, and
many have pointed out time and time again...  As such, violations may
occur unintentionally, which as we have seen lately on a couple of occasions...

So unless there are "Rules" (If indeed needed), than they need to be determined

and agreed to by the assembly members, voted upon by the assembly members,
and applied in a n open, fair and transparent manner.

>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 23:22:07 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] trying again ... back

I'm not seeing list traffic, including my test messages.
- --
R O E L A N D   M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
t:01 925 373 3954
c:01 925 352 3615
f:01 925 373 9781 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:34:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Patrick,
>
> I was responding to Joop's motion.  He labeled some of our members as
> "destabilizers and obsessives" and concluded that "we are dealing here with
> unfettered chaos, with rules that have become worthless with being
> unenforceable."

  I don't see any chaos here Danny.  Just some chronic complaining about
and issue regarding the illegitimate rules that a tiny minority seem to wish
to argue about over and over again.  That is not chaos to me.  I can ignore
those rehashed arguments at will..  I frequently do...  So can you, so can
Patrick, so can anyone.  So admonishing Patrick on this issue is not
convincing to me.  Others mileage of course may vary.

>
>
> I share his assessment.  Having heard comments tonight to the effect that it
> is acceptable to regularly break the rules as long as they are not
> excessively broken on any one day, and other comments to the effect that all
> our rules are "illegitimate", I can re-affirm that Joop is correct in his
> observations.

  I believe that you are misinterpreting what Joop was referring to.  It is not
the NUMBER of posts that he was referring to, but the nature of some
participants posts...  I may agree with him with respect to some participants,
but also realize the fact that unless a participant can express him/herself
in their own style and manner of their choosing, than you are advocating
a form of CENSORSHIP.  And ANY FORM OF CENSORSHIP IS
WRONG!

>
>
> I did not post my comments to ga-abuse, because I was hoping that an
> admonition from the Chair might serve to cut down on excessive postings.   I
> can see now that this will not be the case.  No matter what time zone you are
> in, when you see numbers like 8,10,13 posts per day, it is obvious that some
> have chosen not to respect the rules.  Those that have little respect for
> rules will typically have little respect for those that abide by the rules,
> hence the surfeit of complaints to ga-abuse.
>
> It was my hope that we could all mutually arrive at a solution to deal with
> this problem that wouldn't have to involve the imposition of sanctions on our
> members.  As it stands, I will withdraw my suggestion and simply allow the
> list monitors to do their jobs.  If these members do not wish to curtail
> their behavior, then they will simply have to live with the consequences of
> their actions.
>
> Perhaps when sanctions next are meted out, this Assembly will begin to return
> to order... although I am quite sure that this list will once more again be
> paralyzed by those who will feel the need to express their views on the List
> Monitors' decisions.
>
> I encourage the List Monitors to catch up on their backlog of cases, and to
> issue whatever sanctions are required.
> -

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:47:47 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question to Jeff Williams

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:07:06 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:
> > You have argued that the rules of this Assembly are "illegitimate".   Is
> > it your intention to continue violating the rules of this Assembly?
>
> Dear Danny
>
> Thank you for participating in the debate but that's not how it is done.

  Danny ask a legitimate question regarding an illegitimate set of imposed
rules.  So his question, by itself is legitimate, and I answered as accurately
and completely as I could in a separate post.  I hope that Danny understands
the answer as it is intended.  We will see...

>
>
> Jeff Williams has said the rules are "illegitimate".  I'd guess that
> somebody drafted a set of rules based on discussion on this list.  Perhaps
> there were even debates about the method of adopting the rules (voting
> procedures, etc.).  Clearly you then have a boot-strap paradox.
>
> Of course, any vote cannot be "legitimate" until the voting procedures have
> been set up first.  And anyone can refute the legitimacy of a process.  Some
> use this argument against the list monitors, the sublists, anything at all.

  At the time that the current set of illegitimate set of rules were imposed as
voting procedure was not yet in place.  There is one now.  We should use it.
However we continue to see complaints of concerns (Pick you term), that
to do that is expensive.  I don't see how...  I am still waiting on the answer
to a question to define how doing so is soooo expensive as some have claimed..

>
>
> On occasions, people question the legitimacy so hard that they pull down
> the system.  It happened with "apartheid" which was seen as legitimate
> but immoral.  It nearly happened with the presidential election in Florida.
> Certainly it happened with discrimination in Australia and the US.
>
> Now we had this before when a person was suspended for excess postings.
> He said the list limit was illegitimate because it had not been sanctioned
> by
> the Chair.  Nevertheless, the punishment was still enforced.  That sort of
> thing happens everytime there's an execution in the US.

  Yes, and it should happen when it is proven or clearly exhibited that
the method reason was not a legitimate process.  As Patrick Henry
said, "Give me liberty or give me death"...  Many were killed in those
times, as were many in the Apartheid regime in South Africa.  And
the result were that with Patrick Henry, he paid with his life.  He was
hanged by the English.  Have we not learned better than this sort of
thin by now?  If not, than history will repeat itself to a degree yet again.
Is that necessary?  I think not.  What say all of you?

>
>
> But none of what Jeff said is against the list rules as they are constituted
> at present.  It seems to me that you break the rules of the General Assembly
> by suggesting that about Jeff.
>
> You should respect the system and submit a complaint to the list monitors?
>
> Or do you want to make the system look REALLY illegitimate??

  What system????  This is a ML forum, not a system...

>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 23:44:41 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

To remind people there is a vote on that is important and that as chair you
recognize it's importance.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:09:13 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Question to Jeff Williams

Hello Patrick,

It seems to me that if the two of you can't get along, you should both
resign.

Sunday, July 08, 2001, 10:38:18 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:07:06 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:
>> You have argued that the rules of this Assembly are "illegitimate".   Is
>> it your intention to continue violating the rules of this Assembly?

> Dear Danny

> Thank you for participating in the debate but that's not how it is done.

> Jeff Williams has said the rules are "illegitimate".  I'd guess that
> somebody drafted a set of rules based on discussion on this list.  Perhaps
> there were even debates about the method of adopting the rules (voting
> procedures, etc.).  Clearly you then have a boot-strap paradox.

> Of course, any vote cannot be "legitimate" until the voting procedures have
> been set up first.  And anyone can refute the legitimacy of a process.  Some
> use this argument against the list monitors, the sublists, anything at all.

> On occasions, people question the legitimacy so hard that they pull down
> the system.  It happened with "apartheid" which was seen as legitimate
> but immoral.  It nearly happened with the presidential election in Florida.
> Certainly it happened with discrimination in Australia and the US.

> Now we had this before when a person was suspended for excess postings.
> He said the list limit was illegitimate because it had not been sanctioned
> by
> the Chair.  Nevertheless, the punishment was still enforced.  That sort of
> thing happens everytime there's an execution in the US.

> But none of what Jeff said is against the list rules as they are constituted
> at present.  It seems to me that you break the rules of the General Assembly
> by suggesting that about Jeff.

> You should respect the system and submit a complaint to the list monitors?

> Or do you want to make the system look REALLY illegitimate??

> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:19:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hello DannyYounger,

I again call for your resignation.

Sunday, July 08, 2001, 10:25:31 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> I share his assessment.  Having heard comments tonight to the effect that it
> is acceptable to regularly break the rules as long as they are not 
> excessively broken on any one day, and other comments to the effect that all 
> our rules are "illegitimate", I can re-affirm that Joop is correct in his 
> observations.

No, you can't.

> I did not post my comments to ga-abuse, because I was hoping that an
> admonition from the Chair might serve to cut down on excessive postings.   I 
> can see now that this will not be the case.  No matter what time zone you are 
> in, when you see numbers like 8,10,13 posts per day, it is obvious that some 
> have chosen not to respect the rules.  Those that have little respect for 
> rules will typically have little respect for those that abide by the rules, 
> hence the surfeit of complaints to ga-abuse.

In your sampling, there was 1 poster on 1 day with 10 posts, none with
13, 4 that you allege had 8 post days (but on review, turns out they
didn't after all, when you abide by their time zones).

As a matter of fact, even going into your 6 post charges, in checking
them, you will find that in fact there were only 4, NOT 11, when you
apply the time zone rules.

Many people, including myself, are very time zone aware.  For example,
a previous post made just minutes ago was actually written about an
hour ago, and saved to post today.  This one I waited to respond to
until after 12am as well.

You were rather free with your accusations of abuse, but you didn't
even take the time to check your accusations to see if in fact they
were accurate according to the rules.

I have to agree with Patrick, in that your charges are actually
abusive as well.

> It was my hope that we could all mutually arrive at a solution to deal with 
> this problem that wouldn't have to involve the imposition of sanctions on our 
> members.

I have one.  Resign, you and Patrick.  Let the new chair come in and
untie the hands of the moderators so that they act on their own
initiative, and the chair accepts the role of reviewing sanctions for
appropriateness.

And might I suggest that next time you do some better fact checking
before floating irresponsible and false accusations.

I ask for other members to support a call for you and Patrick to step
down as a  result of your actions, and your inability to lead this
assembly, and Patrick's unsuitability for his position and propensity
to take take his "position" too far.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 00:43:07 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Patrick Corliss as List Monitor

Or, more commonly expressed, cutting off your nose
to spite your face.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear General Assembly Members:
>
> I have noted the following message posted by Patrick Corliss to the Council
> List:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00582.html
>
> It is my view that the statement put forth constitutes malfeasance.
> Defamatory remarks have been made by an official of the Assembly that
> sufficiently malign some of our members on a publicly archived list.  As
> Chair, I cannot accept such commentary from an individual designated as a
> List Monitor for this Assembly.   I am therefore terminating Patrick's role
> as List Monitor immediately.
>
> "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
> of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
> selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed from
> the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:08:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question to "Jeff Williams"

On 07:38 09/07/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>But none of what Jeff said is against the list rules as they are constituted
>at present.  It seems to me that you break the rules of the General Assembly
>by suggesting that about Jeff.
>You should respect the system and submit a complaint to the list monitors?
>Or do you want to make the system look REALLY illegitimate??

But it was really illigitimate to use *my* name to ask/accuse Jeff.

Let be candid, the Chairs are de facto empty and we manage as we can. 
Except for the noise resulting from the could-have-been-Chair's bursts and 
the consequences of the constant "don't forget I am here" and campaigning 
against the could-have-been-Chair by the want-to-be-co-Chair, this list 
would probably sleep and from time to time work peacefully as in the past.

Let have a try: let have Patrick and Danny stop posting for 2 weeks. Not a 
punishment: just a test. And let everyone agree that we forget their past 
positions so we do not continue on themes like, violation, punishment, 
motion denial, fighting the NC, forcing people into sub-lists, personnal 
accusations, supposed secretariat mis-behavior, etc... Just let try to have 
a clean-shirt try with no Chair. We may keep the Monitors: I feel they will 
have a low workload.

Jefsey

PS. I must acknowledged - and I publicly stated it a long ago - since IMHO 
there is no chair, I do not care at all about the 5 posts a day absurd 
limit. I just respond as I see it needed. Anyway I have no problem in 
having one of my partners responding for me...  :-)

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:36:17 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-rules] Assembly Voting on Suspensions

Report from ga-rules to ga.
(the sub-lists were created provided their Chair would report to the GA. No 
Chair having been elected, I will from now on assume the role of reporting 
sub-list to the GA since the alt-Chair was kind enoug to subscribe me on 
all of them - what you cannot do in just accessing to the DNSO.org site. In 
so doing I respect the USCANN ByLaws when calling for Transparency).

This mail is of real interest: I will only quote abstracts not to bore the GA.

> > On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:47:37 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that ,
> > > instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are
> > > authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get
> > > repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will
> > > put up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.

It means that every Friday, the GA will vote to approve the most delatted 
people. Decidely an improvement on the list being kept for NC use only. 
Good point!

Response by the alt-Chair
> > Interesting proposal but perhaps you need to express the wording more
> > clearly.  Your system could, for example, be used to put up the name of
> > the person that receives more than X complaints about a single posting
> > up on the web for a vote of all GA members on 4 week removal.
> > The trouble is that any X greater than two is unlikely to be attained.
> > There are many complaints but not all about the same posting.  In fact the
> > very volume of posts means that complaints are diffused over many posts.

This seem to indicate that most of the complaints against A come from
B only and that most of the complaints against B comes from A only.
Extremely complex problem...

> > The only way to do that is to switch from examining complaints on a "per
> > post" basis and do it on a "per person" basis.  That method would be way
> > open to abuse.  In fact, it would be more than likely to increase the
> > level of onlist *attacks*.

And the concerne of A (sorry, Patrick) is that B could send several
complaints more and kill him for 4 weeks. Very Good point. Tense exchange!

<snip: I do make cut offs>

> > One possibility, which I like very much, would be to base the length of
> > the suspension on the will of the General Assembly.  If that was put to the
> > vote, you could have a system where the number of voters determined the
> > length of the suspension.

Look!

> > For example, 25% support might mean two weeks, 50% mean a month,
> > and 75% a year.  That way, the punishment will depend on the
> > seriousness of the abuse.

Simple, neat, easy. The more complaints, the less voters, the higher
density of interested pople, the longer silent is the list.

> > As you might expect, I will post this to [ga-rules] for further debate.

Yes! every of you should go on GA-RULES (just ask A, sorry, Patrick,
to subcribe you in case you tried dnso.org in vain: dnso.org does not
know about sub-lists.

>Ahh. Punishment by popularity. Like Clinton. Because he was popular he
>didn't commit perjury, he just lied about having sex with an intern.
>Nevermind it was under oath. He was popular.

The smash: they forgot to remove the support from the total.

If B get 40% for suspension and 35% against, we are in the
year braket. But if you remove supporter from opponents
we only are on the 5%,  three days braket!

Now what if the support defeats the suspension: if B gets
30% for suspension and 40% against, how can we give
him one week of no-suspension? suspending the whole
list for one week? or suspending A????

>What I am trying to point out is what happens when someone posts their
>opinion and it is a very unpopular opinion and the person saying it is
>unpopular as well. Does that give the person less right to voice their
>opinion. No IMO. A vote therefore would not be the way to go IMO. A very
>popular person would most likely always get the minimum suspension and an
>unpopular one would get the max. Not a fair system.
>
>Try this approach. Maintain your committee or panel. Let the committee or
>panel review reports of abuse by Moderators only. Moderators make their own
>decisions and the decision sticks unless appealed by the individual being
>basnned to the panel of moderators who can overturn one moderators decision.
>If all the Moderators police themselves the system works fine IMO and it
>give an individual the right to be heard and possibly have their posting
>rights reinstated. It also expedites decisions as they are made by a single
>Moderator with no panel discussion.

Obvious!

Exactly the article the Uruguyan constitution I suggested. These guies
(our guests in september) have a huge system. If the Governement takes
a decision, the Cabinet Ministers may decide to vote againt their own
Governement. Looks silly, but actually when you consider it, it is brillant.
It means that each Minister may decide and react quickly by his own:
if he is a Minister it means he is cute and knows what the others think.
And if the others think he is wrong they may legally disapprove without
entering into a Government crisis.

Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 09:54:26 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Offline for few days

Dear all,
I will leave this afternoon, and will have little chance to see my mail in 
the next 10 days.
I will also unsubscribe, to avoid inbox overflow, and re-subscribe when I 
will be back home (2001-07-20 or 21).
In the meantime, I will be at the PSO General Assembly in Sophia Antipolis 
2001-07-11, and at the .eu meeting in Brussels 2001-07-13(will anybody else 
be there?).
Best regards
Roberto
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:58:23 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

On 2001-07-08 22:03:42 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list 
>in the last month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to 
>the main GA list by 62 individuals.  Six people accounted for half 
>of all the posts.

[...]

>Let us consider what our list would have been like if these 
>individuals were on holiday during the last month.  We would have 
>received 502 posts from 56 people spread over 31 days (an average 
>of one post per individual about every 3-4 days).

>I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly 
>might best be served by further restricting the number of 
>allowable daily postings in order to cut down on the "noise". 
>Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list would be sensible, 
>if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.

As you demonstrated yourself, it would be entirely sufficient to 
enforce the existing rules - at least in the case of regular 
offenses.  Just imagine what would happen if the list monitors were 
doing their work: The six people you mentioned (with the possible 
exception of Patrick) would be "on holidays", and the list traffic 
would be considerably reduced.

So there is really no actual need to further restrict the number of 
postings per day - IF the current rules are actually applied.

Note, BTW, that those who suggest "fuzzy" posting quotas (it's just 
one over the 5 posts per day) are basically just trying to push the 
posting quota up.  

Saying that minor violations (one or two postings ov er the quota) 
don't lead to sanctions is just equivalent to lifting the quota to 6 
or 7 postings per day.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:25:58 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Automated Cross Posting Limits

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:49:35 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

> The list server software should be configured to reject any post from
> the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour period.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:17:33 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> If the Secretariat would add a
>
> X-Posted-By: [email-masked]
>
> header to every email sent to the list (replacing
> [email-masked] with the actual poster's address of course)
> it would be trivial for a "Post Counter" to be run, which counts the
> number of posts from each sender.  This could be used to generate an
> automatic "warning" to the sender, thus providing a disincentive to
> further posts beyond the limit.

Hi William

I agree that automating the cross-posting limits would solve many problems.
In particular, it would:

(1)    reduce the "crowding" effect of excess postings to the lists
(2)    dispel any doubts and fears held by the person posting
(3)    eliminate those complaints and so reduce the list monitors work
(4)    save having to keep posting reminders every month or so

However, I don't agree that the poster should just be sent a warning as some
members of the list may simply ignore the warning and continue to post
excessively.  I therefore propose that:

The mailing list server software be configured for each of the various [ga]
lists to reject any post from the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour
period.  Any rejected post should be returned to the sender with a notice
explaining why the post was rejected.

If this suggestion can be supported, I am sure that much of the present
debate over the rules and list monitoring would be quickly eliminated.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #601
************************