Do we really need to go this far? Brin-L was conceptualized with open transparency in mind. The type of 'big brother' committee you're proposing is, I believe, overkill.From: Jean-Louis Couturier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Open question to the list Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:31:29 -0500At 22:30 2002-12-05 -0800, Debbi wrote:This also has the merit of being a proactive way of dealing with problems. ItAdam Lipscomb wrote: >"How should we handle administrative authority on the >list? >We've got a lot of options, some less palatable than >others. It's obvious that, in light of both recent >events ond other events in the past, that there is >occasionally a need to move to actively work to rein >in a listmember that is acting inappropriately. >I'm wondering if we need to set up a three or five >person committee (perhaps with rotating membership) to >deal with stuff like this. Either elected or >volunteer membership would do..." A rotating committee of active list members could act as a panel of judges/arbitrators in 'non-immediate danger' situations; but a listmember who was 'dangerous' - as in hacking into a security system - could legitimately be 'banned' immediately by the listowners, with arbitration/discussion to follow, setting conditions of "moderation" or sanctions. <frowns at this thread-over to Iraq> Pros: Such a system would take some of the responsibilities from the listowners, and give listmembers a way to request intervention if they felt they were being treated unfairly (but it just might *prevent* such a situation in the first place). If it doesn't meet with the community's approval during a trial period, dissolve it. Cons: ~This would require the willing participation of all active members. ~Panels (3- or 5-person) would have to be balanced as much as possible WRT positions on free expression, what constitutes harrassment or personal attacks, etc. ~The list would become at least partially 'moderated' - or perhaps 'more an adult.' I'm sure there are many more I haven't thought of.
might help us solve problems before they inflate.
I'd also volunteer. I'd rather find a solution than sit on the sidelines whileWould I be willing to be on such a panel? Only if it was for a specified length of time (3 months? 6? <shudder>), because I *would not* enjoy dealing with such conflicts, but I can't really propose something if I'm not willing to be a part of, can I?
things heat up.
I don't like having to discuss this at all, but it isn't going to go away. :( DebbiIndeed. Jean-Louis
What's wrong with a simple majority vote (over a finite time period -- say a couple of days or more), on whether someone should be moderated for a pre-specified time period.
A random member could be selected as a non-voting arbitrator in case of a tie.
I'm very curious about how more people (Marvin, Adam, Julia, Ronn, Reggie, Jim, Nick, Erik etc.,) feel about your idea.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l