Received: from localhost ([::1]:45430 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arzQs-0000cx-6S; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:01:02 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52]:33710) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1arzQk-0000bn-7J for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:00:59 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id n62so89813490vkb.0 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:00:54 -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=6nttSuNAP5bGfOTV60iIXsr2+kUfkQxpfUSSFEacOHo=; b=siifg8I9AaefJWUBTdUgrjmOltalxr4LAOiop/ZJzAZETPRzdEyDpZqMJ1Vl94/+cW dhU53xHudopqJFOOd/Hs/Yrc3eoxeCwwzUHuAwQ5ZS53l64Hyw4+RL+tZXk2W1xK8G8x bCTJGFVqRnkpi0TGmelKk/YHhwJUsSyVmY50cu94iEiGE7rzP/dGC41yy3D7x8CdmdB6 0zTrDFsiO6oKtUJ/OchUbEbn/uSGtyjnV3qw9cruvWNTnWwG6Qr3ZiaV3BIXcEAduYX6 jeNdbVgnrbRPnFLLAhBX48z5FMu+SKF/YBD8DHPb6Z9u/ySpCtbkRY8BwhdTNw6DU+wl PA9g== 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=6nttSuNAP5bGfOTV60iIXsr2+kUfkQxpfUSSFEacOHo=; b=HkF6Y0TMHQ1FETLUGsadaCtVFqWcAKPi73Y6Bx5Tma8ORi9qTC7c/ZUBriBF0pokZ0 ALhB5QY/xP7JSSOLZWHXWANnEpN0FGlDF0389GwYHk4STLqOrvKWpejk8SETlsXXxZoD 0uf5To0hxeL5EBt4eE/QqDReUt2H3wjNN1FoYuto1oI4eK5BXisrwZ7gVXDwsia+EDuY lgzhUFKpnIc2y0tvfSkJwN/cpwOlFGIfiyNvcjFbgY6bm0jbbp2hknEaHAljIWKie+py 71GpbLO/e97GRbHi5mjB9QE3L5cVQ+ciqvKt+bCnbcXFFq/V+SkC+yAA/kax4FqOqudF l/bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWW9pTq43Oxt+BEslCfBvI6A2EXdcnlnOZtisFV5K3cprnqt+yIZnYPuNxTVklZOb+2tiXcrvkFZ95nQQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.6.232 with SMTP id g95mr17480114uag.115.1460948448092; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:00:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <571271C9.7050002@lojban.org> <50A08C82-B160-4ADB-B5D9-D2FBB307C32E@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 23:00:47 -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="===============2240322632747920386==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2240322632747920386== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c122e3c48ab120530b99163 --94eb2c122e3c48ab120530b99163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 --94eb2c122e3c48ab120530b99163 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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-members@lojban.org > http:/= /mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members

--94eb2c122e3c48ab120530b99163-- --===============2240322632747920386== 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 --===============2240322632747920386==--