On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 12:49:14AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: > How about this? Everyone who doesn't care much (like me) > shouldn't vote. We'll leave it up to those who feel strongly enough > about the issue that they're prepared to quit the list.
How about this? No one vote now. If people have such a big problem with him (I don't have any problem with him, the posts are weird but so what), then I think they should first make a much stronger effort to talk, persuade, or cajole him into behaving in the way they would like. This might include repeatedly trying to engage him in a discussion about his behavior (and documenting the attempts if they are offlist), repeatedly asking him why he is doing what people want to change, discussing and drafting a formal warning (including crystal clear statements of the behavior that they want changed) and designating someone to be the spokesperson to issue the warning. If the warning is violated (and the violation conditions should be clearly specified in the warning), then a vote to ban could be considered. However, it needs to be handled in an organized fashion. The current "call for votes" lacks a clear and unambiguous statement of the issue being voted on, lacks the criteria on which the vote outcome will be decided, and lacks a clear statement of the exact consequences if the motion passes. Also, the voting period should be a minimum of 1 week (ideally I'd suggest 2 weeks), since it is not uncommon for people to be offlist for a week. These missing pieces of due process and information are why I say the present call for votes should be ignored. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
