board77

I would like to request that people concentrate on comments and suggestions regarding the current activities of the committee in this thread. Topics for future committee action probably belong more in the symposium thread, as do general observations about the health/direction of the board.

I'm not sure where attempts to fix the blame for things belong, but it is not here in any case. I have been and will continue to have the rangers shovel out this thread on a regular basis to remove such.

As for a comment on the Jury room thread.

What's all this "this decision cannot be contested" crap. So if you piss of a ranger and they want to mess with you, you have no recourse?

I think that language is a little strong.

I also think we still have the issue of who decides what's "frivilous" etc.

hal--

I tend to agree that no Ranger decision can be held sacrosanct, and that there are issues with how much judgment can or should be applied by rangers. I personally prefer as cut-and-dried a model as we can get to avoid dropping this particular hot potato into the lap of any ranger.

When we get to dealing with language, probably tomorrow, we will certainly discuss both these issues.

The committee can indeed address any number of issues. We have chosen to concentrate on one first, rather than chasing our collective tail by trying to deal with them all at once. However, just because we CAN address any number of issues doesn't mean we HAVE to or that we should. The consensus of the current membership is to look at the BR issues first, and then decide IF any further action is necessary at this point.

I would urge any committee members who have a different view of the current process to let me and the board know! I can only speak for myself and my perceptions as the chairperson. But as the chairperson, my priority for THIS thread is current input on current activity, since that's the most useful application of the resource.

Please note that I have NOT requested various side issues regarding possible future activities for the committee to be removed to another thread, but rather have asked that FUTURE posts of this sort be done elsewhere, for the time being.

Locking and splitting again.


edit: done.

edit 2: removed rolleyes smilie

edit 3: Oh, and I sent the digression to BR. Again.

There's a thread in this forum called Charter Issues. I think it would make sense to discuss future issues there. But for the sanity of the committee I would also request that only matters pertaining to the current Bike Racks proposal be discussed here at this time.

I'd also request the rangers who splitt of the threads not refer to the process as "mucking out" or something that needs a "rolleyes" smile.

Halplm,
If that hurts your feelings, of course I will not do it again.


*sigh*

fisssh--

Excellent idea.

I thought so too fissh I just didn't want to derail this thread anymore

MH, hal might take you a little more seriously if you'd not added that *sigh*. Just sayin'. Don't really want another spat. Just tellin' ya what he's gonna point out

Compliments are always in order.

Okay good because last time I complimented fisssh I got scolded for getting personal with another poster. Now my assocication is that I can't compliment fisssh without fearing reprimand. Oh I'm ruined!

I didn't take MH's *sigh* that way. I took it as "I can't believe we have to worry about offending people like this." Which I agree with, forget what I said, MH.

Now, if the issue is to decide the CURRENT issue right now, and worry about other stuff later, why don't we just put it up for a vote. Adding a line of explanation in, offer two options:

One saying casual and light-hearted disputes ARE allowed in the BR.

Another saying casual and light-hearted disputes ARE NOT allowed in the BR.

THAT is the current issue, and apparently one that cannot be worked out in any way except a board-wide vote for some people. Rebuilding things into a better way of dispute resolution is a different issue entirely, and overly complicates things.

Any options for better dispute resolution, be they in the BR, or in the JR, or a new forum altogether, have to have both of the above options.

Regarding the discussion of the two 'tightening' proposals, I agree with TheMary. Less change or greater change is preferrable to greater change or radical change.

fisssh wrote:

(And by the way, I wonder if the language serious attempts at dispute resolution would be helpful. That way the criteria is not on the nature of the dispute but the earnestness of the parties involved. Just a thought...)

As usual, I'm in agreement with fisssh. Here is one suggestion for that wording change (with an extra modifier for good measure). Note I used 'earnest' rather than the suggested 'serious' because the word 'serious' led to trouble earlier as seeming to exclude genuine disputes of lesser severity.

current proposal text wrote:

¶1: The Bike Racks Forum
The Bike Racks Forum is a read and write forum for all members. It is available solely for resolving personal disputes.

Possible change: It is available solely for earnest attempts at resolving genuine personal disputes.

Axordil wrote:

I would urge any committee members who have a different view of the current process to let me and the board know! I can only speak for myself and my perceptions as the chairperson. But as the chairperson, my priority for THIS thread is current input on current activity, since that's the most useful application of the resource.

I agree with your interpretation of the purpose of this thread, for what it is worth.

I am kind of lost at what point in the process we are. Am I supposed to be doing anything other than what I have already done? I thought we were waiting for more input from other people and will decide on what to put forth to people next.

Well, I hope everyone who feels really strongly about which of the two BR models from the BR tightening proposal has spoken up. We'll go ahead and vote so we can get to the language issues. Members at large and committee members alike have made some recommendations worth looking at.

Voronwe wrote:

I agree that nothing in the Charter would forbid this approach.

Voronwe, could you explain why you do not see this to be in conflict with the Charter directive to hold a yes/no vote for a single proposal put before the membership?

Has something changed since the ToE committee procedure, in which we determined we were limited to putting forward a single proposal for a yes/no vote?

Axordil wrote:

How are people with the "uncontestable" nature of the thread invasion bit in the BR tightening proposal? It bugs me a bit on principle to have anything be uncontestable around here, I confess.

Ax, if that is taken out, there is really no point in even offering the proposal at all, IMO.

We are clarifying what the Bike Racks is allowed to be used for, and we are giving the Rangers the means to enforce it.

If you take away the means to enforce it (by allowing contestation), then why bother? It will just perpetuate the nonsense.

Cerin--

It's the abstract notion that bugs me, more than the actual practice. Even in as cut-and-dried a situation as this, where someone either clearly does or doesn't post in a thread they haven't been invited into. Or perhaps because it is so cut-and-dried...if there can't be any question as to whether someone has done it, then how can it be contested at all? I mean, there's no judgment to be exercized, so it's more like the Ranger power to edit a post if the picture stretches the page than it is like a special or emergency power. That is, it's not a decision. Only decisions can be contested.

I would be all right if it were made clear that this isn't a decision, but an essentially automatic function.

Cerin, I spoke in error. I have clarified my comments in the Jury Room.