BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2002-10 > 1034477162


From: "Kathy Heidel" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 02-19 revised
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:49:32 -0500
References: <3.0.5.32.20021012163909.00b35690@mail.chattanooga.net>


I agree with these changes and I second the following modification to the
Motion 02-19
Kathy Heidel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Stowell" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 02-19 revised


> If my second will agree, I'm modifying the motion to read as follows:
>
> I move the following:
>
> Whereas the USGenWeb-All list has traditionally been a list were USGenWeb
> members who were so inclined could join and share knowledge or concern
> regarding the USGenWeb Project and is therefore the members list we the
> members of the Advisory Board hereby implement the following with regard
to
> this list and its administration:
>
> - that the list be reopened as soon as this motion is passed and the
> following points have been addressed:
>
> List Membership:
>
> - that it be open to all voting members of the USGenWeb Project whose
> membership will be confirmed by the list administrator or his/her
designee,
> as the person wishing to join has their name listed as a member of
xxgenweb
> state project or special project on their main site as a bona fide member.
>
> - that it will be the responsibility of each list member to provide said
> proof by sending a working URL or letter from the state's project or
> special project naming them as a member
>
> [change above point to read] - that it will be the responsibility of each
> person wishing to join the list to provide proof of membership.
>
> - that upon verification that each list member have full posting
privileges
> within the confines of the list rules
>
> List Administration:
>
> - that the list be administrated on a rotating basis by the 8 CC Reps of
> the 4 regions on a quarterly basis, starting with those members whose term
> of office ends 31 August 2003, so that each of the 8 CC Reps will have a
> turn at administering the list.
> - that the list administrator have 2 CCs as co-administrators appointed by
> them who are not members of the current Advisory Board. These 2 CCs term
> of office will expire with the list administrator's term so that 2 CCs
will
> have to be appointed by the incoming administrator.
> - that these 3 administrators shall be free from interference by the
> National Coordinator or the Advisory Board in administrating the list
> unless or until such time as corrective action so designated by the list
> rules are not enforced by them.
>
> [change this section to read]:
>
> List Administration:
>
> - that the list be administrated by 3 persons, one of whom is an AB member
> with 2 CCs as co-administrators appointed by them who are not members of
> the current Advisory Board.
> - that these 3 administrators shall be free from interference by the
> National Coordinator or the Advisory Board in administrating the list
> unless or until such time as corrective action so designated by the list
> rules are not enforced by them.
>
>
> List Decorum:
>
> - whereas the list management now falls under the jurisdiction and/or
> responsibility of the Advisory Board the following standards will be
applied:
>
> - no profanity
> - no name-calling of fellow members
> - staying on topic.
>
> While some topics are ok that are not related to the list, such as holiday
> greetings or announcements, if you aren't sure, then don't or at least ask
> the administrator for permission to post items that may be of general
> interest.
>
> Proper netiquette (etiquette on the Internet) is that one does not forward
> private emails in totality to another person without prior permission of
> the sender. You may certainly say that x person told me this and/or quote
> from a message you received much like you would from a newspaper or book.
>
> Harassment and Flaming:
>
> from the following website(s) -
> http://english.ttu.edu/carter/MBU/MBU.definitions.html :
>
> The definition of "flaming" seems to have taken two different directions
in
> the past couple of years.
>
> A. As a term applied to electronic discussions, it refers to a situation
> where people say something in the electronic situation they probably
> wouldn't say in a face to face situation. Social norms seem to have been
> broken because of the electronic element. More specifically, most people
> would further define this situation ONLY if it applies to negative
> utterances: gay-bashing, cursing, cutting remarks. This kind of flaming
> usually destroys/degrades the conversation. Many people believe the
teacher
> should intervene at this point; others feel like the group will monitor
> itself and bring social pressure to bear on the flamer.
>
> B. The second definition seems more prevalent on the news groups, where it
> refers to jumping on someone's case for some reason. This definition
> doesn't carry the connotation of saying what you normally wouldn't say in
> face-to-face discussions, but rather giving your blunt opinion. e.g.
"Sorry
> for this flame, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about!" In
> my opinion, this kind of flaming rarely shuts down the conversation unless
> it degenerates into the first kind of flaming.
>
> Harassment - copied in part from -
>
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/publications/monographs/harassment/harassment03.ht
ml
>
> Would I want this behavior to be the subject of a column in the newspaper
> or to appear on the evening news?
>
> Would I behave this way if a member of my family were standing next to me?
> Would I want to see someone I love treated this way?
> Is the behavior initiated equally by me and the other person?"
>
> Penalty Box:
>
> - if members are accused by another member of slander, the list
> administrator(s) must investigate to the best of their ability.
> - first infractions would require a public apology on the list by the
> person accused within a prescribed period of time, else face restriction
or
> loss of posting privileges for a certain amount of time, in other words
> going to the penalty box.
> - further infractions will require greater penalties to be determined by
> the list administrators by a majority vote.
> - penalties imposed must be made public so that the other members may
> understand the consequences for improper conduct and so they will know
when
> the penalty phase ends for the accused.
>
> [change this section to read]:
>
> Penalty Box:
>
> - first infractions would require a public reprimand.
> - further infractions would allow the administrators to moderate the
> individual or loss of posting privileges for a certain amount of time, in
> other words going to the penalty box.
> - further infractions will require greater penalties to be determined by
> the list administrators by a majority vote.
> - penalties imposed must be made public so that the other members may
> understand the consequences for improper conduct and so they will know
when
> the penalty phase ends for the accused.
>
>
>
> - other penalties or list rules to be posted publicly by the list
> administrator and in the letter that members receive upon subscription.
>
> ================================================
> So the re-worded motion would read:
>
> I move the following:
>
> Whereas the USGenWeb-All list has traditionally been a list were USGenWeb
> members who were so inclined could join and share knowledge or concern
> regarding the USGenWeb Project and is therefore the members list we the
> members of the Advisory Board hereby implement the following with regard
to
> this list and its administration:
>
> - that the list be reopened as soon as this motion is passed and the
> following points have been addressed:
>
> List Membership:
>
> - that it be open to all voting members of the USGenWeb Project whose
> membership will be confirmed by the list administrator or his/her
designee,
> as the person wishing to join has their name listed as a member of
xxgenweb
> state project or special project on their main site as a bona fide member.
>
> - that upon verification that each list member have full posting
privileges
> within the confines of the list rules
>
> List Administration:
>
> - that the list be administrated by 3 persons, one of whom is an AB member
> with 2 CCs as co-administrators appointed by them who are not members of
> the current Advisory Board.
> - that these 3 administrators shall be free from interference by the
> National Coordinator or the Advisory Board in administrating the list
> unless or until such time as corrective action so designated by the list
> rules are not enforced by them.
>
>
> List Decorum:
>
> - whereas the list management now falls under the jurisdiction and/or
> responsibility of the Advisory Board the following standards will be
applied:
>
> - no profanity
> - no name-calling of fellow members
> - staying on topic.
>
> While some topics are ok that are not related to the list, such as holiday
> greetings or announcements, if you aren't sure, then don't or at least ask
> the administrator for permission to post items that may be of general
> interest.
>
> Proper netiquette (etiquette on the Internet) is that one does not forward
> private emails in totality to another person without prior permission of
> the sender. You may certainly say that x person told me this and/or quote
> from a message you received much like you would from a newspaper or book.
>
> Harassment and Flaming:
>
> from the following website(s) -
> http://english.ttu.edu/carter/MBU/MBU.definitions.html :
>
> The definition of "flaming" seems to have taken two different directions
in
> the past couple of years.
>
> A. As a term applied to electronic discussions, it refers to a situation
> where people say something in the electronic situation they probably
> wouldn't say in a face to face situation. Social norms seem to have been
> broken because of the electronic element. More specifically, most people
> would further define this situation ONLY if it applies to negative
> utterances: gay-bashing, cursing, cutting remarks. This kind of flaming
> usually destroys/degrades the conversation. Many people believe the
teacher
> should intervene at this point; others feel like the group will monitor
> itself and bring social pressure to bear on the flamer.
>
> B. The second definition seems more prevalent on the news groups, where it
> refers to jumping on someone's case for some reason. This definition
> doesn't carry the connotation of saying what you normally wouldn't say in
> face-to-face discussions, but rather giving your blunt opinion. e.g.
"Sorry
> for this flame, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about!" In
> my opinion, this kind of flaming rarely shuts down the conversation unless
> it degenerates into the first kind of flaming.
>
> Harassment - copied in part from -
>
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/publications/monographs/harassment/harassment03.ht
ml
>
> Would I want this behavior to be the subject of a column in the newspaper
> or to appear on the evening news?
>
> Would I behave this way if a member of my family were standing next to me?
> Would I want to see someone I love treated this way?
> Is the behavior initiated equally by me and the other person?"
>
> Penalty Box:
>
> - first infractions would require a public reprimand.
> - further infractions would allow the administrators to moderate the
> individual or loss of posting privileges for a certain amount of time, in
> other words going to the penalty box.
> - further infractions will require greater penalties to be determined by
> the list administrators by a majority vote.
> - penalties imposed must be made public so that the other members may
> understand the consequences for improper conduct and so they will know
when
> the penalty phase ends for the accused.
>
> - other penalties or list rules to be posted publicly by the list
> administrator and in the letter that members receive upon subscription.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Check out the Awards and Recognition our project has received:
> http://www.usgenweb.com/about/awards.html
>
>

This thread: