| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> Need to read more but seems to me that any mechanistic scheme needs an
> escape clause. if we go with letter IDs, then have the automation be
> relatively harsh and inflexible, but allow appeal.
That sounds like a great idea.
> I know, I know, you don't want to be the decider, because that means
> that you may be charged as being subjective. But you know what, life is
> in some ways subjective and not always completely fair. I think you may
> be straining at gnats if you try to make this perfect.
>
> Set up a policy, then allow exceptions on appeal. Offload the decision
> onto a board of faithful stalwarts (I volunteer for same) done by email.
We could do that. BTW, what do you mean by "appeal"? Someone recevies a
"didn't pass" message and voluntarily says "Hey, I'd like to appeal that
decision?"
That's kind of neat, because, perhaps ultimately cases of appeal become
decided by the community (over discussion or debate somewhere, followed by
a 1/2 or 2/3 majority vote, say) and as such, the voting could provide a
veto mechanism. That's one way to handle appeals, anyway.
> Just make sure I can have lar if we go with character based IDs. :-)
If this style of member-ID's (name-based) is used, you'll surely have no
problem getting "lar". :-)
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
