SUO: RE: FW: Policy and Code of Practice for e-mail lists and Internet Resources V1 D1
Dear Phil,
See responses below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> Sent: 07 December 2003 21:44
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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.
MW: This is provided for.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
MW: I agree. In which case presumably there will be no complaint.
> > >
> > > 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.
MW: Of course.
> > >
> > > 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.
MW: Maybe, but until there is some Code of Practice in place, there is
nothing to measure against.
> > >
> > > 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.
MW: Yes. This is provided for.
> > >
> > > > - 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?
MW: No. I believe we have had one or two postings in French.
> > >
> > > > 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.
MW: It depends on whether your intent is to eliminate people from
the list or change their behaviour to be more productive. My aim
is the latter, so you have some stages to go through to give a person
an opportunity to adjust, but be aware you are serious.
> > >
> > > Phil Jackson
> > >
>
>