Dan Minette schreef: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:24 PM > Subject: Re: Brin-L Constitution
As far as I got it from the majority of posters on this list they didn't agree with the form of Eileen's warning. The ones who did think the warning was deserved also thought that expulsion wasn't warrented and neither was the threat of expulsion. So there is a list consensus to not expell. Frankly I don't see a problem except for a bit of unwarrented fear on the part of a few, among which you Dan. I for one am not willing to sacrifice list freedom when there is in my view a perfectly working democracy at hand. Not even for the sake of safety against authority. > <snipped, question for putting it into a different perspective><snipped > 'stoelendans' = switching around of the actors in the roleplay of this > tragedy> I'm not sure what you are insinuating here? Did you ask Eileen about this? I think you overestimate Jeroen's persuasiveness. And although my opinion doesn't count for much (since I'm married to the other party in this tragic play) JDG does have somewhat of a track record for getting personal if he cannot win the argument. But so do others. Then again the horse JDG and Jeroen were beating was long dead and it's bones were already bleached white to paraphrase how our list crone so charmingly put it. But to give you that different perspective you asked for, let me put it this way: (And let's agree to leave Jeroen out of this, I'm a person in my own right and as such can form my own opinions based on facts and not on simpathies) Suppose that most if not all listmembers (and especially the listowners) disagree with me on most if not on all subjects. Suppose further that I have the possibility to air my views if I choose to do this in a civilised way. If the disagreement and dislike goes so far that my views are no longer tolerated on this list by the _listmembers_, what the *&%$#@ would I be doing here? Seems to me that at that point expulsion would be selfevident even though it wouldn't be warrented by any act of mine except maybe for being myself. So as long as there are members here who are interested in what I say/think however controversial it might be, they have the power to demand my presence on list even though the listowners might totally disagree. > I agree flexibility is good. I agree that a formal constitution will > probably result in legalistic wrangling in the future. The essence of it, > IMHO, is whether listowners do have the right to banish or issue warnings > that someone is "one step closer to banishment" without a clear consensus of > the active members of the list. > <case of Kyle snipped> > <snipped summarization of banishment threats> > I read the drive for a constitution as mainly a drive to get the listowners to > agree to not banishing people on their own. Seriously maybe I'm too good natured but I don't think they ever would. Consensus is needed and listmembers have to agree upon this as well. And I'm sure the rest of the list would have rebelled if JDG would have been thrown off-list without them being consulted. So I think the Brin-L democracy still works well enough without written down rules and regulations. Or did I misunderstand your post here? Sonja [EMAIL PROTECTED]
