[odf-discuss] Apology and proposal for moving forward from the personal attack issue

[Peter Vandenabeele]

On 10/1/07, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
> Yes. This is something we should have done earlier.

OK, that's the past.

And now for the future, a proposal, open for discussion:

* everyone is in principle allowed on the list
  (subscription with a working e-mail is required)

* archives are public

* can be ground for immediate removal and the content
  may be removed from the archive
  * humiliating texts, xenophobic texts, etc.
  * content that is "not suitable" for minors
  * "spam" (e.g. link spam etc.)
  * content that undermines the technical functionality of the system
    (e.g. on purpose engineered mail that technically breaks the system)

* can be ground for immediate moderation and the content
  may be removed from the archive
  * explicit commercial mails

* can be a ground for moderation after 2 warnings by the moderator
  * off-topic mails (even if marked [OT])
  * on-topic discussions that turn into "ad-hominem" attacks, instead
    of discussion of the topic

* the moderator is a role fulfilled by a group of 3 persons that are appointed
  with a 75% majority in an ad-hoc vote (only effectively contributed votes
  count; abstentions and no-vote do not count).

  If the 3 moderators would not be unanimous in their decision, then the group
  of 2 wins and decides on the final position.

* A moderator can be challenged (asked to be removed) if at least 10 persons ask
  so in a joint e-mail to the list. This group of 10 must also propose
a replacement
  candidate. Then within 1 week and 2 weeks after this challenge, a vote is held
  and if  50% of the votes decide to remove the moderator, the
moderator is removed
  and the new candidate is appointed. If more than 1 replacement
candidate is proposed,
  the candidate with the most votes is appointed.
  (only effectively contributed votes count; abstentions and no-vote
do not count)

  In the period between the challenging of the moderator and the
actual vote, the
  challenged moderator temporarily looses his moderator rights
  [in this way, we make sure all moderators have at least 75% of
confidence at the
   time of their appointment and keep 50% at all times].

HTH,

Peter