[governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

[Norbert Bollow]

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>
> >
> > I am new to this group

Welcome! 

> > and have been witnessing many such exchanges
> > & it was last month only there was more tense one, over one member
> > who was not selected for technical group.
> 
> yes, this is the "fallout" from that!

Actually what has led to that public warning has a far longer history,
including expulsion of Suresh from the list in early January (well
before I became one of the coordinators). The immediate cause of that
expulsion decision back then was the manner of a personal attack on
Riaz. That expulsion was reversed on appeal, because according to our
Charter, expulsion was not procedurally possible since there had not
been a previous suspension of posting rights.

> > Surprisingly, didn't see any similar togetherness amongst the IGC
> > coordinators to warn members over their much more aggressive
> > comments.

One procedural requirement is that there must be at least one private
warning before the coordinators are even allowed to issue a public
warning.

> I think this is a key point.  It seems that co-co's react only to
> negative comments from one part of our "political" spectrum

Besides procedural correctness, we strive for being as fair and
unbiased as we possibly can be.

So far only in a single case the point of public warning (and then
suspension) has been reached.

When a single point is plotted onto a "'political' spectrum" of any
kind, it will by logical necessity still be a single point, it cannot
possibly cover the entire spectrum.

I consider it neither appropriate nor procedurally correct to engage in
a public discussion of specific disciplinary matters. If an independent
review is desired of whether the steps that have been taken were
appropriate, the appeal process is available for that.

I will also not discuss here whether some inappropriate remarks are
worse than other inappropriate remarks, nor to what extent the degree
of provocation or absence thereof should be taken in consideration when
making such an evaluation.

The main point is, and I believe that Sala and I have made that quite
clear, that we intend to implement what the IGC Charter [1] says under
the heading "Posting Rules for the IGC", and if we ever again get into
the situation that someone stubbornly refuses to comply, I believe that
we will (even if possibly again only after months of patience and
hesitation have been exhausted) again be willing to take the unpopular
step of escalating the matter to the public warning stage and beyond.
[1] http://www.igcaucus.org/charter

Furthermore, beyond the requirements of the "Posting Rules" in the IGC
Charter, I also intend to do what I can to discourage ad hominem
remarks of any kind except for those that are clearly friendly. (Not all
not-clearly-friendly ad hominem remarks are personal attacks or
otherwise forbidden by the IGC Charter, but even those such remarks
that not exactly forbidden are effectively a hindrance to constructive
discourse.)

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t