<div dir="ltr">Hi Glen,<div><br></div><div>Fantastic comments! I support everything you've said.</div><div><br></div><div>With point (6) in mind, do you mean that moderators should identify themselves in emails to the list via (for example) their email signature?</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 28 October 2014 01:22, Glen Turner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gdt@gdt.id.au" target="_blank">gdt@gdt.id.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi folks,<br>
<br>
Read the policy. Here are some notes of varying degrees of triviality. In<br>
no particular order:<br>
<br>
1)<br>
The Mailing List Policy doesn't anywhere list what is acceptable<br>
behaviour, let alone behaviours are to be encouraged. Not sure what that<br>
says.<br>
<br>
2)<br>
Consider re-wording (3)(d)(i) from<br>
<br>
> offensive verbal or written remarks related to ...<br>
<br>
to<br>
<br>
> offensive remarks; including, but not limited to, those related to ...<br>
<br>
as that would catch unlisted behaviours, such as offensive words<br>
concerning marital status or social class, whilst still giving clear<br>
guidance for the specifically-listed instances.<br>
<br>
It would also fix a small issue concerning the technology of making verbal<br>
remarks to a e-mail list.<br>
<br>
3)<br>
Why aren't the moderators empowered to immediately remove the offensive<br>
remarks from the archive of the mailing list?<br>
<br>
4)<br>
The Linux Australia Council should reserve to itself the ability to review<br>
and direct moderators' actions, irrespective of the lack of a referral to<br>
the Council under (4)(b)(v).<br>
<br>
5)<br>
Why does a victim of offensive behaviour have less ability to refer<br>
moderator decisions to Council than a perpetrator of offensive behaviour?<br>
See (5)(a).<br>
<br>
6)<br>
It should be made clear that moderators are list members when posting to<br>
the list.<br>
<br>
7)<br>
Why does Council constrain its own powers in (5)(c) to just three actions?<br>
Option (5)(c)(i) is particularly limiting -- for example Council cannot<br>
uphold the actions of the Moderators *and* do another thing (eg, provide<br>
clearer guidance for future actions), as that is beyond what Council has<br>
permitted to itself.<br>
<br>
8)<br>
It may not be advantageous to Council to conceed that list members are<br>
considered by it to be natural persons. The distinction between a natural<br>
person and a person acting as a agent of a corporation might well be<br>
something Linux Australia's legal representatives might choose to argue,<br>
and that decision should be left to them in light of the circumstances of<br>
a particular issue.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-glen<br>
<br>
--<br>
Glen Turner <<a href="http://www.gdt.id.au/~gdt/" target="_blank">http://www.gdt.id.au/~gdt/</a>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Policies mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Policies@lists.linux.org.au">Policies@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/policies" target="_blank">http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/policies</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>--------------------------------------------------<br>Tennessee Leeuwenburg<br><a href="http://myownhat.blogspot.com/">http://myownhat.blogspot.com/</a><br>"Don't believe everything you think"
</div>