Received: from localhost ([::1]:45454 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arzW4-0000pL-5J; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:06:24 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.213.54]:33811) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arzVw-0000oT-TA for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:06:21 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id e185so205727770vkb.1 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:06:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=tipGdjussbD6DbQjtKcJ/Z+gyDZTPEgGipmXUU/WgGU=; b=fJES/7Rbj47udS+PrvskE5W5Wwz1wiXzOBrx7KfilUnsJUN3vgGsRgv6j7OXr53aWw BNd7qG4Th2DhUHW84VYaqaBIXSy0rt+EOx/H7UIRaTtV1071/+0jwJqqSJvbNF1nubeQ CfFgaBiycsRjvfJFlxJyqJ2gZ962xvyoFrwcWTKH2QGNjHpjQaO9P0G5FQ1KdPS/BcBi usxgaye+g6E8b1xzlWnK8cfMSH0Dq/Bn7T070Ex97nhoKC6d5sQokNRrJLVAmidTx+9x jFxo23vSPzLZ08c9GQRfmu5lvx7h9Bpl3ZeJ25uKfo6CRhq3NT6XmpvYk0cG+Th2anXJ DACg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=tipGdjussbD6DbQjtKcJ/Z+gyDZTPEgGipmXUU/WgGU=; b=UqMxmDNKEZeoLhLdasBqKpTv5IKbwF6yyNR/nXf6Q9B96H26BLchJffS1GRiR0BTTf BNfjyjeOgl0BcM4+GAKHR2k/gCTrJ3/8s0zSstI4Q6AKTEsNJtAlGaA/3Pk2OVJbqvbd 9rDehPCUleB9Yttlg2LE0/50bZG+xwm86Ta94pfnDSrRRHIF4JUQWJ+kM32A7GX50kmR MvUZJ3GP4170JbvQk4mawfX9OjzknuZ1d9M3m43VeRfX54qXbAHZ105uhHmVlH9mDRIx Rg4Vvdx2Ut+Y7eBqergxTXog3tPa+4+aw3ZD03aYNgZYOpCaB7Z/EPrLAhBX2pMK42w3 /pkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWjQou5vXSkECvWu/iThwzkg0x5zz7i0HnMkY9qXR+Wh/pM4YsgP18mb3eHYxZJYOqTuKRgUCmRleoj2w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.41.195 with SMTP id p186mr15332804vkp.20.1460948770650; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:06:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> <50A08C82-B160-4ADB-B5D9-D2FBB307C32E@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 23:06:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Annual meeting: New Business, anyone? X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1977735705991248467==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1977735705991248467== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ee8188284b10530b9a43a --001a113ee8188284b10530b9a43a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I am not sure how we can hope to regulate "official-pretending" accounts on any platform not under our control. We could deprive people who have been shown to run such accounts of privileges which we control within the community (such as membership to the LLG), we can highly discourage such accounts, and we can denounce accounts which purport to be be official but which are not, but we have no means of actually enforcing compliance. And, of course, we need procedures for how to identify such offenders. On Apr 17, 2016 11:00 PM, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2016 10:46 PM, "guskant" wrote: > > > > 2016-04-18 2:28 GMT+00:00 Curtis Franks : > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2016 9:55 PM, "guskant" wrote: > > >> > > >> My motion and complaints don't mention punishing Gleki for his abuse > > >> of administratorship. I only required depriving Gleki of the > > >> administratorship and selecting an administrator in a reasonable way. > > > > > > I view doing that as punishment unless we establish a new office or > body > > > which is to assume all of such powers and to do so exclusive to anyone > else > > > having them. In that situation, Gleki would have to be appointed to > such > > > office or body with clear authority and restrictions in order to > exercise > > > such powers. > > > > > > Removing the powers from Gleki personally is a punishment. Removing > them > > > from all people and vesting them in a regulated office or body open to > > > anyone meeting certain requirements is not. > > > > Gleki's current power is not given by the official body, only by Robin > > through their personal negotiation out of any official agreement, so > > the deprivation cannot be punishment in any interpretation but is only > > a part of procedure of putting the official web contents under control > > of LLG. There is no way punishing anyone out of range of application of > a law. > > So long as we create a body vested with such powers exclusive to everyone > else having them, or we create clear rules for what constitutes an > infraction that would result in such a deprivation (after which point, > Gleki would have to conduct himself in a way such that he commits such an > infraction as judged by some procedure or body). > > I am saying that we cannot just divest Gleki of those powers without > anything else happening or being involved. At the very least, we need to > make universal rules and then have him violate them in his capacity as an > administrator after that point. In other words, we cannot target him > specifically nor immediately. > > > > > Under normal procedure to be created by the official body, you > > can vote for Gleki as an administrator if you like, though I would > > never vote for him. > > > > mi'e la guskant > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Llg-members mailing list > > Llg-members@lojban.org > > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a113ee8188284b10530b9a43a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am not sure how we can hope to regulate "official-pre= tending" accounts on any platform not under our control. We could depr= ive people who have been shown to run such accounts of privileges which we = control within the community (such as membership to the LLG), we can highly= discourage such accounts, and we can denounce accounts which purport to be= be official but which are not, but we have no means of actually enforcing = compliance. And, of course, we need procedures for how to identify such off= enders.

On Apr 17, 2016 11:00 PM, "Curtis Franks&qu= ot; <curtis.w.franks@gmail.= com> wrote:
<= p dir=3D"ltr">
On Apr 17, 2016 10:46 PM, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2016-04-18 2:28 GMT+00:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:
> >
> > On Apr 17, 2016 9:55 PM, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wr= ote:
> >>
> >> My motion and complaints don't mention punishing Gleki fo= r his abuse
> >> of administratorship. I only required depriving Gleki of the<= br> > >> administratorship and selecting an administrator in a reasona= ble way.
> >
> > I view doing that as punishment unless we establish a new office = or body
> > which is to assume all of such powers and to do so exclusive to a= nyone else
> > having them. In that situation, Gleki would have to be appointed = to such
> > office or body with clear authority and restrictions in order to = exercise
> > such powers.
> >
> > Removing the powers from Gleki personally is a punishment. Removi= ng them
> > from all people and vesting them in a regulated office or body op= en to
> > anyone meeting certain requirements is not.
>
> Gleki's current power is not given by the official body, only by R= obin
> through their personal negotiation out of any official agreement, so > the deprivation cannot be punishment in any interpretation but is only=
> a part of procedure of putting the official web contents under control=
> of LLG. There is no way punishing anyone out of range of application o= f a law.

So long as we create a body vested with such powers exclusiv= e to everyone else having them, or we create clear rules for what constitut= es an infraction that would result in such a deprivation (after which point= , Gleki would have to conduct himself in a way such that he commits such an= infraction as judged by some procedure or body).

I am saying that we cannot just divest Gleki of those powers= without anything else happening or being involved. At the very least, we n= eed to make universal rules and then have him violate them in his capacity = as an administrator after that point. In other words, we cannot target him = specifically nor immediately.

>
> Under normal procedure to be created by the official body, you
> can vote for Gleki as an administrator if you like, though I would
> never vote for him.
>
> mi'e la guskant
>
> _______________________________________________
> Llg-members mailing list
> Llg-member= s@lojban.org
> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members

--001a113ee8188284b10530b9a43a-- --===============1977735705991248467== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============1977735705991248467==--