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

[Tapani Tarvainen]

I think you are right in the narrow sense that the appeals team's
actual decision must be simple, either overriding or approving
the specific action.

But I don't think the charter prohibits the appeals team from explaining
the grounds for its decision, or from expressing an opinion as to
which of possible actions in the situation would have been acceptable,

Any such explanation of their reasoning of course would have no formal
power as such, it would be "just talk", but it would still be
valuable, just as courts' explanations of their reasoning and
interpretation of the law are.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


On Jan 11 08:57, michael gurstein (gurstein at gmail.com) wrote:

> 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