[governance] banning list members

[michael gurstein]

FWIW, I host several e-lists (in the area of Community Informatics), some with up to about 1000 participants.  In one form or another I've been hosting e-lists for almost 15 years.  During that time I've had to warn and ban list contributors, not often but occasionally.

>From my experience (and predilection) discussion and argument is good, good for the lists, generates new ideas, gets people engaged.  

What isn't good are personal attacks, innuendo, a condescending or snearing style of discourse, and so on.  The worst form of list behaviour IMHO is for someone to repeatedly frame their interventions not in relation to the subject at hand but rather in relation to or directed against the individual who is making the intervention.  

In many cases those are deep personal communication styles that work okay in some environments but are deadly in others. 

 An open multi-cultural (in the ethnic and in domain area senses) is one where they can be truly deadly. They close off rather than progress discussion, lead to tit-for-tat verbal ping pong, may be personally very hurtful or even damaging, and overall result in a reluctance by many to even participate since they don't want to subject themselves to the possibility of being the target for that kind of behaviour. 

In some of those instances a warning or two might lead to a change in behaviour. In others it doesn't because the temptation is too great, or the deeply engrained habits are too strong.

For me, in my actions as list host, the ultimate question is whether the mode and content of participation by an individual is conducive to the long term health and well-being of the list/discussion (and ultimately of the contribution that the list is making to the subject at hand).  

If it isn't then I feel the need (and responsibility) to intervene.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 5:51 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim
Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: [governance] banning list members

Hi McTim,

I fully support Sala's decision re temporary banning Suresh from this list.

Whether or not a member of this caucus contributes "actual, productive Internet governance in the technical community" seems pretty irrelevant for the assessment of the communication style of this member.

I've been on this list since 2003 or so and was its co-coordinator for a few years. I have always found the communication culture on this list a real pain. An enormous amount of energy among the active participants seems to be wasted on being aggressive or fending off aggressive behaviour.

I have more or less given up contributing to these debates not only because I dislike this macho "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" approach but also because following these endless repetitions of the same arguments is very very tiresome.

While it may be true that there are more candidates than just Sala who deserves being banned from this list, Sala deserves respect for the fact that she is still trying to improve this very important communication environment. I have always felt that this cross-stakeholder platform fulfills a very important function for the interaction between civil society and the technical community and I wished that more people helped creating an atmosphere that makes this conversation a pleasure.

jeanette



Am 08.01.2013 14:18, schrieb McTim:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>    Suresh gets booted from this list for trying to say that 
>>> anti-Google campaign is boring, while those who mistakenly label 
>>> folk as "right-wing"
>>> (the people in the US who normally bash Google) are seen as victims?
>>> Does anyone on this list understand the irony involved here? anyone??
>>
>>
>> For the record, Suresh was not removed for his ideas but was removed 
>> for the manner in which he attacked Riaz.
>
> Can you specify the manner of this "attack"?  What exact words 
> constituted an "attack"?
>
> Riaz has a history of using loaded words.  This provocation is 
> unchallenged by the coordinators.
>
> Suresh has a long history of doing actual, productive Internet 
> governance in the technical community.
>
>
>
> The spirit of the list should be where
>> dialogue is encouraged and there is an expected level of decorum 
>> expected of lists. There was a distinct pattern
>
> Yes, there is a pattern, it's not however the pattern that you see.
> The pattern is that one person uses provocative words.
> People react to those words in like manner.  The provocatuer then 
> cries "ad hominem" and you react to that.
>
> In short, you are being conned madame, and i ask that you re-consider 
> your decision.
>
> I ask that 4 other Members of the caucus +1 the request for an appeal.
>



-------------- 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