Bruce,
Thanks for this highly welcome comment!
Tony Harris
> Hello Chuck,
>
> > In that regard, we
> > may want to consider some means of dealing with non-constructive
> > behavior both for observers and members.
>
> I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal with
inappropriate
> behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of the whole group.
> Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but based on documented
> guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as seeking the views of
> other members of the group.
>
> I think the Council then is simply able to deal with issues on an
appeal
> basis - which could be handled in a similar way to that of the Board
> appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council can investigate and
> report to the whole Council.
>
> However - I would hope that these situations are rare events. The
best
> approach is to stop inappropriate behaviour as soon as it happens,
> rather than let it gradually grow amongst multiple participants (ie
such
> behaviour tends to escalate). If a problem is let run too long, then
> you will always be blamed for singling out one person, when other
people
> have also been behaving inappropriately.
>
> The rough rule of thumb is that was is not acceptable in a small
> face-to-face environment in terms of language and courtesy is not
> acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing list when people are
> further apart.
>
> I have noticed that when a group of people have been "fighting"
amongst
> themselves on a mailing list and then meet face-to-face, the bad
> feelings are often carried over. In contrast where a group has
> initially met face-to-face a few times and the group members have
built
> some respect for each others opinions and good intentions, then
mailing
> lists discussions are generally much more civil. For example, the
> Council meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do most of the
more
> active members of the registrar constituency. Subsequently mailing
list
> and teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil despite the
fact
> that the participants may be strong competitors in business, or have
> strongly opposing views on a matter.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
