BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2002-11 > 1036504351


From: Eppy <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] VOTE--Motion 02-19
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:52:58 -0600
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021104233507.009e7ce0@imap.cs.com>


no

jimmy




Richard Harrison wrote:

> Please cast your vote on Motion 02-19 offered by Tim--"YES" if in favor,
> "NO" if opposed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.html
> 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.
>
> Richard "Isaiah" Harrison
> National Coordinator
> The USGenWeb Project
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Standing Procedures for the Advisory Board are located at:
> http://www.usgenweb.com/official/standing-procedures.html


This thread: