SUO: FW: Policy and Code of Practice for e-mail lists and Internet Resources V1 D1
Also forwarding these comments to the main mailing list.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:32 PM
> To: suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: FW: Policy and Code of Practice for e-mail lists and Internet
> Resources V1 D1
>
>
> I'm forwarding my comments on Matthew's draft to the Policies mail-list.
>
> Phil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:02 PM
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> > Subject: RE: Policy and Code of Practice for e-mail lists and Internet
> > Resources V1 D1
> >
> >
> > Dear Matthew,
> >
> > Please see comments below:
> >
> > > Relevance
> > > Postings shall be relevant to the purpose of the list to
> > > which they are sent. The larger the number of posting by
> > > an individual, the greater care should be taken to ensure
> > > relevance. Those who post on average less than two e-
> > > mails per week are allowed latitude in the relevance of
> > > their posting.
> >
> > If someone consistently posts irrelevant material, then there
> > needs to be some formal process for the group to stop future
> > posting altogether. This process needs to rely on the group's
> > judgement on what is or is not relevant to its purpose, and
> > whether the irrelevance in posting has been sufficiently
> > consistent to require curtailment.
> >
> >
> > > Consideration for other members - Literary Style
> > > The purpose of postings to the SUO e-mail lists is to
> > > communicate with other list members. Those posting
> > > messages shall therefore consider their audience in
> > > drafting their postings.
> > > - Postings shall be reasonably concise so that the
> > > content is not obscured.
> > > - Postings shall be complete, rather than end in mid
> > > thought.
> > > - Postings shall be clear and unambiguous, to
> > > accurately convey the message and to avoid unnecessary
> > > clarification.
> >
> >
> > All the above concepts (conciseness, completeness, clarity) can
> > be replaced by the notion of "relevance". The group may forgive
> > something not being concise or complete or perfectly clear if it
> > is considered sufficiently relevant.
> >
> > None of these notions (relevance, conciseness, completeness,
> > clarity) can be given a precise, formal definition. In all of
> > them we will need to depend on the group's human judgment
> > regarding whether postings are relevant.
> >
> > It should be clear to all members up front that SUO is a team
> > effort, and depends on all members demonstrating good teamwork in
> > their approach to communication. Posting of irrelevant messages
> > is a severe handicap to the team's efforts.
> >
> > Since SUO is an activity that is open to volunteer participants
> > (rather than by invitation only), SUO needs some way to remove
> > participants whose communications are detrimental to the team's work.
> >
> > > - Postings shall use language that reflects that many
> > > members do not have English as a first language (i.e.
> > > avoid colloquialisms).
> >
> > Has it been specified that all postings shall be in English?
> >
> > > 3.2. Remedies
> > > In the event of a posting not complying with this Code of
> > > Practice, a member may write to the list to point out the
> > > nature of the non-compliance. The member accused of non-
> > > compliance may apologise or defend his posting. If the
> > > complaining member does not accept the defence, then they
> > > may call for a vote to determine whether the post was non-
> > > compliant. If a member consistently fails to comply with
> > > the Code of Practice then the Chair shall give them a
> > > formal warning. If the member still consistently fails to
> > > comply then the Chair shall propose a motion for the
> > > offending member to be excluded from the list.
> >
> > Rather than have a multi-stage approach, it would be better to
> > have only a single vote, rewording the previous paragraph as follows:
> >
> > In the event of a posting not complying with this Code of
> > Practice, a member may write to the list to point out the
> > nature of the non-compliance. The member accused of non-
> > compliance may apologise or defend his posting. If the
> > complaining member does not accept the response, then they
> > may request that the Chair call for a vote to curtail
> > future postings by the member accused of non-compliance.
> > If the Chair receives four calls for such a vote from
> > different complaining members, then the Chair shall
> > call for a vote to curtail future postings by the member
> > accused of non-compliance. Such curtailment shall apply to
> > all SUO mailing lists.
> >
> > Phil Jackson
> >