SUO: RE: FW: Policy and Code of Practice for e-mail lists and Internet Resources V1 D1
Dear Matthew,
Please see responses below.
> > > PJ:
> > > > 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.
I agree, of course.
> > > > MW:
> > > > > 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.
> > > PJ:
> > > > Rather than have a multi-stage approach, it would be better to
> > > > have only a single vote, rewording the previous paragraph
> > > > as follows:
> > > PJ:
> > > > 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.
My goal is just to achieve a well-defined, fair process that would be
effective in solving such a problem from the group's perspective. I would
also prefer not to eliminate someone, but I think that if someone receives
four separate complaints they will have effectively demonstrated they cannot
change their behavior. Before the vote, the group would have opportunity for
discussion of whether the person has had adequate opportunity to respond to
feedback.
In contrast the process you have described above could require the group to
vote multiple times. It is not clear at what point, or after how many votes
the Chair would be able to propose a motion to exclude the member from a
list.
Our experience has been that votes are very painful and time-consuming. I'd
like to see a process that gives a well-defined time period for someone to
change their behavior, but I would recommend that we limit the number of
votes during this process.
Phil Jackson