<html><head/><body><html><head></head><body>Hi,<br>
<br>
I think you are confusing member with list participant. I know some people crave that change to the way the list works. <br>
Also, other than minimal netiquette, I do not read the charter as imposing any content or topical restrictions.<br>
<br>
If someone did want to change how the list worked, would not the list be the place to do so? <br>
And if someone has a different set of interpretations of the charter, isn't the list the place to discuss them? <br>
<br>
If someone wants transparency on the basis on which coordinators' made their decision, why isn't the list the place to ask that?<br>
<br>
If people want to understand whether they should appeal a decision, isn't the list the place to discuss that?<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 0px">Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">Still catching up. So much fascinating email to catch up on.<br /><br /><br />On 8 Apr 2013, at 08:08, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">Maybe one solution would be for the people who agree with you on<br />what kind of policy is desirable, to join that list?</blockquote><br /><br />Love it or leave it?<br />Is that what I hear?<br />Agree or leave it?</blockquote><br />There are different types of lists in regard to what rules there are and<br />how the rules are to be enforced or not, and there are different ways in<br />which the set of acceptable discussion topics can be chosen.<br /><br />The
fundamental situation that we had was that there was, on the same<br />list, a set of written rules and elected coordinators tasked with<br />enforcing them, and in addition someone who not only promoted a<br />different set of rules but who also systematically brought criticism and<br />personal attacks on those who failed to comply with that different set<br />of rules.<br /><br />Unsurprisingly this conflicted situation was not conductive to<br />constructive discussion and discourse. <br /><br />There is however no reason why different sets of rules, and entirely<br />different philosophies in regard to the concept of posting rules, can't<br />peacefully coexist by means different lists functioning according to<br />different principles.<br /><br />Of course we have other aspects of conflict and hostility besides what<br />I have described above, but the suggestion that people who desire a<br />fundamentally different type of list join a different list (unless they<br />!
believe
that they are able to achieve the needed qualified majority and<br />quorum to change the IGC Charter) refers to the above-described kind of<br />disagreement with how the IGC Charter defines what IGC is supposed to<br />be. The logic of the IGC Charter is to either accept it (you don't have<br />to love it in order to accept it, and nobody will hate you for grumbling<br />occasionally about the aspects that you don't like) or you're not a<br />member of the IGC. I haven't invented that, that's just how it is. Maybe<br />it could be improved... in my opinion in order for a proposal for a big<br />change to have any chance of success, a proposer would need to provide,<br />as a first step, a way in which the potential improvement can be tried<br />out.<br /><br />Greetings,<br />Norbert<br /><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
Avri Doria</body></html></body></html>