Oliver, I do not agree with your proposal and it's already doomed, as our present system for making decisions is strict consensus.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote: > If we cannot agree on committee etiquette, i.e. rules about interaction > which respects human dignity, we will not succeed in setting up rules about > anything else either. > > I propose the following rule: > > - No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity) > - Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be > blocked for one month. > > Feel free to discuss, add and/or amend. I still think we have to start > somewhere to get our interaction to an acceptable level again. There are > some widely agreed-upon netiquette standards out there (e.g. [1]-[3]; the > slide inserted below is from [4]). I would have hoped that we don't need > such rules but frequent flare-ups over the years have finally convinced me > otherwise. > > I herewith *ask for votes on my proposed rule* within the usual 7-day > deadline. Should discussion lead to additions or amendments (like including > more detailed rules from the examples I listed below), the deadline will be > postponed accordingly. > > Fwiw, > Oliver > > [1] https://lifehacker.com/5473859/basic-etiquette-for- > email-lists-and-forums > [2] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-netiquette-guidelines- > writing-emails-forum-posts/ (esp. no.7) > [3] https://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-be-polite- > while-youre-online-practicing-good-netiquette/ > [4] http://images.slideplayer.com/47/11762279/slides/slide_3.jpg > > > On 11-Dec-17 12:21, Milos Rancic wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, > I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not > just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette > of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is > impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. > Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I > support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here. > > I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the > same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to > "reconsider" my position here. > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing > [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.http://www.avg.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
