On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > In my humble opinion, if the addresses are invalid for nomation and voting > > they should not be valid for subscription to the various mailing lists > > hosted by the DNSO. Freedom of speech issus might be considered, but I > > guess that kind of issues will only be relevant to real, existing people. > The danger in this is the complete lack of vetted, objective, > clearly-defined procedures to do so. Instead actions have been taken > on an ad-hoc and discriminatory basis without any possible recourse. (---) Fair enough. How about limiting the amount of postings per person / personality to a maximum of five (5) postings a day? It's not that I can't stand the heat, but I'm getting kind of tired of the spam in the kitchen... When it comes to voting I certainly hope that the so-called watchdogs will review the process in full, so all decisions will be highly transparent and visible to the public and the affected. It could for example be a good thing to start with the decision regarding Jeff Williams. What I would do if I was one of these watchdogs is that I would create a website where I: 1. post the notes and protocol from the DNSO meeting where the decision on Williams was made, 2. post my personal notes from the same meeting and 3. post a personal view of the decision, if it was made in a sound, democratic tradition and so forth. Just my two cents for what it's worth, Mikael _________________________________________________________________________ ICQ:35638414 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pawlo.com/
