USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2007-09 > 1189536795


From:
Subject: Re: [ABChat] USGenWeb National Mail Lists - Draft
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:53:15 -0400
References: <mailman.70573.1189525865.7286.usgenweb-all@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.70573.1189525865.7286.usgenweb-all@rootsweb.com>


Greta and Board,

I most strenuously object to removing any type of reprimand from the
grievance process. I do recognize that a mailing list admin must
sometimes act immediately to prevent problems, but that action should
be reasonable and fair. As long as it is, no reasonable person on
the Grievance Committee would find fault. But to deny a member the
process violates the letter and the spirit of the new Bylaw.

I would simply suggest that if there is a complaint filed, the List
Admins action be subject to review by the Grievance Committee AFTER
THE FACT. That gives the NC/Admin the power to control emergencies,
but is tempered by the normal grievance process.

I must also object to the extreme punishments. I think the admin
rules stated by Linda Lewis would be sufficient. If courtesy is
required; profanity and attacks against individuals forbidden, the
list should run smoothly. I do think it is the list admins
responsibility to place a list on moderation when problems arise, but
only until the list cools down.

We are all human and make mistakes. If an explanation and apology
are immediately sent to the NC/AB/admin/list, there should be
allowances for errors.

,
Patrice


At 9/11/2007 11:51 AM, you wrote:
>From: "bluebear" <>
>
>The intent is to expedite decisions on appeals, not to deny members access
>to the Grievance Committee.
>
>Rules can never cover every conceivable situation, so it's important to
>allow for appeals and another look both at the rule and the ruling.
>Ultimately, however, the decision will be an interpretation by someone. In
>the case of emails on USGenWeb national lists we're proposing that the list
>administrators, who are also the chair and members of the Advisory Board,
>are those with the experience and the responsibility to interpret the rules
>well. Passing the appeal on to the Grievance Committee does not seem to add
>significantly to the likelihood of a just decision, but only to the burden
>of their job.
>
>We realize that may not be the opinion of all our members. Whether people
>are satisfied with a ruling and a process of appeals depends on whether they
>accept the legitimacy and good will of the people making it. Those who don't
>probably won't be satisfied with any process.
>
>Just my thoughts on it. : )
>
>Greta Thompson


This thread: