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

[Norbert Bollow]

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I think you are confusing member with list participant.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not confusing the two, even though I've
referred to both concepts.

> Also, other than minimal netiquette, I do not read the charter as
> imposing any content or topical restrictions.

Under "posting rules" we have:

  "Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include...
   * Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives"

> If someone did want to change how the list worked, would not the list
> be the place to do so?

Yes, of course... the way to go about it is to propose a change for
discussion, etc., and if the idea requires a Charter change, we're aware
of the process for trying to achieve that (and since the recent failed
attempt we also have renewed awareness of the need to have constant
reminders during the process in order to have a chance to meet the
quorum requirement-)

> And if someone has a different set of interpretations of the charter,
> isn't the list the place to discuss them?

Sure, interpretation of the charter is something that can be discussed
on the list if desired.

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

The list isn't a wrong place for requests for transparency.

But there is one particular type of such requests that is so likely to
have effects of its own which very much go against the goal of having a
non-hostile environment that I consider it appropriate to discourage 
that particular type of requests for transparency.

That said, I think that by its very nature, the concept of private
warnings implies that there will not be full transparency.

I think that if full transparency in regard to all efforts of the
coordinators to enforce the Charter's posting rules is desired, it would
be necessary to first eliminate the concept of private warnings from the
process that is outlined in the Charter.

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

Yes, of course.

If someone considers to appeal a formal private warning, they can post
about the issue here on the list.

If someone has not received a formal private warning, but wants one, and
considers to appeal not having been warned, they can also post about
the issue here on the list. :-)

I am however not going to publicly disclose private warnings, or hint
about who may have received one. That would be quite contrary to the
concept of private warnings.

There is no such problem with public warnings, or other publicly
announced decisions, of course.

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