In a message dated 2/1/02 10:15:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, I would very much like to thank Jeroen for posting this to the list. It seems like an excellent start.
Do we all think that such a document is needed? I think we should get that question out of the way before we really dive into such a project. But here are my thoughts anyway. I would also like to add that if and when this Constitution is completed, there needs to be either a clause or an understanding that definitions to terms must be changed only by mutual agreement of the active list majority. This will prevent someone from being persecuted for doing anything that isn’t listed as an offense. << Title: <Brin-L Constitution> 1. The Listowners are responsible for solving any technical problems Members may have with their subscription.>> And answering questions about technical details people may have *about* the list, like "How do I unsubscribe", or "Where is Dr. Brin's Site" <<2. All Members, including the Listowners, may call on an other Member if he or she is showing undesirable conduct.>> As you said, defining “desirable content” is, of course the issue. I would like to submit “repeated personal attacks”, and “sending spam to the list” as the two criteria that I see undesirable conduct fall into. A definition needs to be put in the Constitution or defined in an addendum. <<“3. These calls are to be made off-list. To keep a complete record of these calls, Members are requested to CC or BCC such a message to the Listowners.”>> This is fine. The calls should be polite and should be stipulated as such. <<4. If a Member continues his misbehaviour, other Members, including the Listowners, may call on the offending Member on-list.>> Also OK by me. <<5. If a Member still continues his misbehaviour, he will be sanctioned by a Temporary Ban from the List, but not before the matter is discussed on-list and consensus has been reached.>> I’m fine with this, with one caveat. The offender must be allowed a suitable time (lets say 3 days) to rebut the judgment of the list. I think the ban should be used as an absolute last-resort tactic. <<6. This Temporary Ban will not exceed a period of four weeks.>> I prefer the arrangement Alberto suggested. 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks. I doubt most people will stick around after being banned by mutual list consent 3 times. <<7. The offending Member may return to the List after the period of the Temporary Ban has passed.>> OK <<8. If the offending Member still continues his misbehaviour, he will be sanctioned by a Permanent Ban from the List, but not before the matter is discussed on-list and consensus has been reached.>> To repeat what I said above: I’m fine with this, with one caveat. The offender must be allowed a suitable time (lets say 3 days) to rebut the judgment of the list. I think the Permanent ban should be used only as an absolute last-resort tactic. I also think there should be a ‘the list will not hold their past against them’ stipulation. <<9. When the List decides to impose a sanction, it is the duty of the Listowners to carry out the sanction.>> No problems with this. <<A few notes: 1. It needs to be defined what constitutes "undesirable conduct" (point #2) 2. It needs to be defined what constitutes "misbehaviour" (points #4, #5, #8)>> I think I may have gotten the ball rolling. Anyone else? <<May wisdom guide you on this journey.>> Hah! My cats have more wisdom than I do most days. I should let them post to the list for a while. :-) Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
