[governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think you are confusing member with list participant. I know some people crave that change to the way the list works. 
Also, other than minimal netiquette, I do not read the charter as imposing any content or topical restrictions.

If someone did want to change how the list worked, would not the list be the place to do so?  
And if someone has a different set of interpretations of the charter, isn't the list the place to discuss them?  

If someone wants transparency on the basis on which coordinators' made their decision, why isn't the list the place to ask that?

If people want to understand whether they should appeal a decision, isn't the list the place to discuss that?


Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Still catching up.  So much fascinating email to catch up on.
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 Apr 2013, at 08:08, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> 
>> > Maybe one solution would be for the people who agree with you on
>> > what kind of policy is desirable, to join that list?
>> 
>> 
>> Love it or leave it?
>> Is that what I hear?
>> Agree or leave it?
>
>There are different types of lists in regard to what rules there are
>and
>how the rules are to be enforced or not, and there are different ways
>in
>which the set of acceptable discussion topics can be chosen.
>
>The fundamental situation that we had was that there was, on the same
>list, a set of written rules and elected coordinators tasked with
>enforcing them, and in addition someone who not only promoted a
>different set of rules but who also systematically brought criticism
>and
>personal attacks on those who failed to comply with that different set
>of rules.
>
>Unsurprisingly this conflicted situation was not conductive to
>constructive discussion and discourse. 
>
>There is however no reason why different sets of rules, and entirely
>different philosophies in regard to the concept of posting rules, can't
>peacefully coexist by means different lists functioning according to
>different principles.
>
>Of course we have other aspects of conflict and hostility besides what
>I have described above, but the suggestion that people who desire a
>fundamentally different type of list join a different list (unless they
>believe that they are able to achieve the needed qualified majority and
>quorum to change the IGC Charter) refers to the above-described kind of
>disagreement with how the IGC Charter defines what IGC is supposed to
>be. The logic of the IGC Charter is to either accept it (you don't have
>to love it in order to accept it, and nobody will hate you for
>grumbling
>occasionally about the aspects that you don't like) or you're not a
>member of the IGC. I haven't invented that, that's just how it is.
>Maybe
>it could be improved... in my opinion in order for a proposal for a big
>change to have any chance of success, a proposer would need to provide,
>as a first step, a way in which the potential improvement can be tried
>out.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130415/27a1da14/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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