----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:05 AM Subject: Re: and so it goes...
> How about this? >...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. That sounds reasonable. Dan M.
