[governance] Re: a formal appeal request to the appeal team to reverse the recent ban on a Member

[michael gurstein]

I agree but I'm not sure how this fits with the charter... it is an appeal
concerning a specific decision, I believe... i.e. whether the actions of the
coordinator were appropriate under the circumstances, (which I believe
contra some who have commented on the list should be seen as a response not
to a single intervention by the individual under sanction, but rather as
part of an extended pattern of communication to this list of which the
particular incident in question was only one element.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tapani Tarvainen
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:03 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: a formal appeal request to the appeal team to
reverse the recent ban on a Member

Ditto.

I would like to add that I wish the appeals committee would not consider
this as an either-or situation, but more fine-grained, what kind of
sanctions could and should be used in general and what (if any) in this case
in particular.

That is, things like how many warnings would be appropriate; should warnings
be public or private; if someone is banned from a list, should it be
permanent or temporary and if the latter, how long; could just temporary
suspension of posting privileges work (so they could read the list but not
post anything themselves); or could individual moderation be used.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

On Jan 09 21:13, Sivasubramanian M (isolatedn at gmail.com) wrote:

> I support the appeal request.
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> On Jan 9, 2013 1:19 PM, "William Drake" <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Me too
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On Jan 8, 2013, at 22:57, George Sadowsky 
> > <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I support them also.
> >
> > On Jan 8, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote:
> >
> > I support these grounds for appeal.
> >
> > Ivar
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There was no "ad hominem" attack in the email that caused the 
> >> complainant to complain.




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