[governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

[CCAOI]

Dear Norbert,

".....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..."

I had appreciated your response and had not pursued my posting, "what
else is discrimination", further till I saw a similar situation again.
Aren't we choosing switch-off/on positions at convenience.... Isn't it
the time for co--co chairs to willingly take the unpopular step to
escalate the matter to the public warning stage and beyond, on the
postings from others having sadistic pleasure on humiliation to any
member & rubbing them further.

I hereby appeal to everyone's conscious to decide or echo concern for
one member, who has contributed immensely for various causes, being
cornered to this extent. It's not about which side we are at, it's
about the call of our conscience... our fundamentals of not silencing
even our worst critic, despite him/her being in minority... it's about
watching a boxing bout and enjoying or supporting someone who has been
punching below belts... Save this noble movement where the cause is
bigger than personal emotions. I appeal!

Regards,

Naresh Ajwani

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2:33 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: McTim; Naresh Ajwani
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

[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