Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:36:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1190 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> >
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38AF34B1.B4C22D8F@voyager.net>...
> >
> > > Use something like onelist. The mails are available forever. (note, I
> > > said something LIKE onelist... actually Todd has the technology to do
> > > this, I think, without going outside his own sandbox)
> >
> > I agree mailing list is the best way.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either way, as it will only directly effect • panel
> members anyway - but is the move towards a mailing list a desire for • privacy? I
> always thought that newsgroups gave better structure and reference • abilities,
> so if there was such a thing as a 'private' newsgroup that could be used • when
> needed- would that be just as good, or am I missing an inherent benefit of
> mailing lists?
>
>
> > Perhaps we should start tossing more concrete ideas of how decisions will • be
> > made, what kinds of things deserve action, and what kinds of penalties
> > should be invoked.
>
> Do you mean like defining the scope of responsibility and limitation of • powers?
>
>
> > For decision making, I suggest consensus rather than a vote. The idea of
> > consensus is that a decision is reached that all find agreeable. This • means
> > that if one person has a feeling that an over or under reaction is
> > occurring, then the group must respond to that. Of course if the group • takes
> > too long to make a decision, or is unable to, Todd may step in and declare
> > an action by fiat. I think Todd should at least observe the panel
> > discussions, even if he isn't on the panel (perhaps he is a non-voting
> > member?). Of course Todd has ultimate override authority.
>
> This sounds reasonable to me, perhaps using vote as last resort if • concensus
> fails, all parties having voiced their opinions?
Well the idea of consensus is that you try and reach an agreement that
everyone can feel comfortable with (even if they don't all agree with it).
Allowing a vote to shortcut consensus means your not using consensus. The
idea of consensus is to make sure that every opinion is listened to and
given consideration. The advantage I see to consensus over voting for this
is that the panel is able to present a unified decision.
> > I think that if a panel member sees a serious violation, they should act
> > immediately, but then the whole panel needs to come to a consensus as to
> > whether to continue the action, or do something different.
>
> What do you mean by 'act immeadiately'? Do you mean, step in as an • authorative
> voice.. try to stop any flamage, and make a statement that the matter has • been
> referred to the panel?
Immediate action might include:
- posting or e-mailing a warning
- blocking access to newsgroups
- just acknowledging that the panel is aware of the issue (which would
hopefully curtail some of the bickering)
> > I think panel discussions should be private, but there may be some things
> > which need to be aired in public, I would assume lugnet.admin.general is • the
> > place to do so, but there might be cause for a separate group.
>
> My take on it, is that being on the panel is a position of responsibility.. • not
> an oportunity to become more popular. Someone on the panel should be • prepared
> to act fairly, and be seen to act fairly towards everyone. If a panel • member is
> known for fairness then should they feel ashamed for voicing what they • truely
> feel?
>
> Having a public panel means that people can see exactly what is wrong, and • why.
> People won't be able to say, oh - so'n'so is before the panel, and is good
> friends with half of them - they'll go easy.
>
> That said - there will be times when privacy is necessary, although I'd • imagine
> rarely. If the transgression is so major that it requires privacy, then • maybe
> it is out of the scope of the panels responsibility anyway?
The reason I think private discussion has merit is that it allows the panel
to discuss information which perhaps should not be public. I would also note
that at least in the US, jury and higher court deliberations are private.
There perhaps should be a public discovery phase, and certainly the final
decision should be explained. I'm not sure that keeping a permanent record
of the deliberations is a good idea. Again, dirty laundry may be aired which
shouldn't be made public.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I agree with the concept of concensus, but there isn't always a "right" way to go about something - there will be times when someone will never feel comfortable with a certain compromise. Rather than have a panel continually reiterate their (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| Actually, thinking on - in the majority of occurances - would deliberation be necessary? If a panel member replies to a mis-placed one-off auction announcement, with a note saying "Please don't do this, etc, etc", and cc's or cross-posts this to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I don't have a strong opinion either way, as it will only directly effect panel members anyway - but is the move towards a mailing list a desire for privacy? I always thought that newsgroups gave better structure and reference abilities, so if (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
82 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
