Dear Keith
the problem is that i don't agree with what you think was proper
process.
it was to me not correct when the list owners interfered with the
discussion on ken/cindy a month ago. and put opacity on discussion that
should have, on a list like this, remained transparent. and took the
whole matter in their hands, deciding for the group how the matter
should be treated, and then announced a resolution. this process in my
mind was not proper.
and here for the same reason, i feel uncomfortable when you call us to
discuss with you offlist about the resolution. this is an management
issue that i believe you should allow members to decide for themselves.
i have a different image of how a list like this runs. and this is a
proprosal for you and david to consider...
separation of rule making and administration is a form of democratic
goverance that we should adopt for this list.
i think it is better if list owners act as leaders, giving out rules,
advice, suggestions and leave management, 'policing', 'sentencing' to
list members. cindy was the strongest police force on the list. and i
think it was quite ok because she was also being policed by other
members. this is a democratic form of management.
at the present, the list owners are acting as managers. and in a few
occasions, list owers set up rules and executed rules. for me that is
the most inappropriate. it is authoritarian.
i might be asking for too much. but i am, as a member, proposing what i
believe is a much more open system for running the list.
make sense?
rosan
Keith Russell wrote:
>
> Dear Rosan,
>
> While you might not agree with the Resolution of the List Owners I think
> you need to consider that proper process has taken place.
>
> A judgement has been made that yes, Cindy's postings constituted
> deception to members of the group.
>
> A sentence was imposed - a Season of Silence.
>
> You might recall that courts of law keep the judgement and the sentence
> as separate things. In the case of sentencing, matters of intention etc
> are considered. You might not think that the sentence matches the
> judgement. You might believe that there should be some kind of Mandatory
> outcome - (deception = automatic life-time suspension, for example). The
> List Owners took the view that a Season of Silence was appropriate.
>
> A precendent has been set - the Group does NOT agree to the use of false
> identities on the list.
>
> Following a recent suggestion that the List Owners might allow people to
> engage in deceptive uses of the list it is perhaps required that the
> List Owners announce that they will NOT permit, knowingly, any use of
> deception on the list for ANY purpose.
>
> If members wish to keep arguing the resolution can they please do so
> with the list owners off-list.
>
> About to go behind the moon
>
> keith russell
> co-owner
|