P&P: RE: FW: Policy and Code of Practice for e-mail lists and Internet Resources V1 D1

["West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>]

Dear Phil,

See comments 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: 08 December 2003 23:26
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: FW: Policy and Code of Practice for e-mail lists and
> Internet Resources V1 D1
> 
<snip>
> > > > 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.

MW: I think that two votes are necessary. I would expect that
an offender would not necessarily expect that their
contributions would be seen as breaking the code of practice,
given as we have agreed that there is inevitably some 
interpretation involved. The first would be a clear warning.
This might cause a change in behaviour. The second vote
would be to remove.

> 
> Phil Jackson
> 
> 
>