Present: Ann; Charlie; Mike, Munjoymam, RickB; RobZ;
Sassy; TimF; VanAllen
Meeting started at: Sat Sep
15, 2001 23:05
Rick B opened the discussion
concerning 3 agenda items: ban policy, 450 level, approval of the minutes...may
I suggest that we look at last month's minutes first...and consider what to do
about 2 other meeting minutes that weren't approved...
TimF mentioned that he found
one correction to the minutes of 8/15...It has to do with the fact that we *did*
agree to conduct members' meetings concurrently with regular meetings (as we
are) but the room identities are incorrect. It should reflect that the regular meetings continue in room #SLAA
as always and that the members' meetings (business) are now conducted in #SLAA2.
The minutes reflect slaa#1 and slaa#2,
which could certainly be confusing
RickB stated the URL of the
minutes is: https://www.angelfire.com/on/slaa/minutes/010815.html. I would like to make a motion to change the
wording to say "#SLAA" and
"#SLAA2"
* TimF moves to approve the
minutes of 4/15/01, 7/15/01, and 8/15/01(as amended).
* RobZ seconds
Vote was unanimous, approval
of the minutes (with amendment) carries
RickB said, “next, let's
look at changing officer op levels from 400 to 450 in our bylaws... “
TimF stated, just to put
everyone on the same page...our bylaws right now make... chairperson=500; co-chairperson=499;
secretary=450; and webmaster & co-webmaster=400 All other ops are level 400
and attendees are level 1 the only difference between 400 and 450 is the
ability to change the greeting that CStar issues upon entry into #SLAA. Since this is "technically" a
webmaster/co-webmaster function I would like to move that our bylaws change the
level of webmaster AND co-webmaster from 400 to 450 I don't see any other
implications, but will be glad to field any questions (and so move)
* RobZ seconds
Vote taken, and 8 approved
so it carries (9 attending)
RickB mentioned the last
thing is the ban policy
URLs some may want for
reference...
https://www.angelfire.com/on/slaa/GUIDELINES.html
http://www.starlink-irc.org/sldocs/slchartr.html
TimF stated, basically, in a
nutshell, it gave most supervisory controls to the owner and co-owner (chair
& co-chair). It also emphasized
that any attempt to defeat bans (e.g. by using other nicks, IDENTS, or ISP's)
was severe and would be good reason for owner/co-owner to escalate the problem
to StarLink-IRC operators for g-line and/or k-line bans
Ann had a question. She
wanted to know, why someone would be banned, and what is the procedure for
banning someone. TimF replied (https://www.angelfire.com/on/slaa/GUIDELINES.html
explains most of this).
RickB explains, ok in a
nutshell... according to StarLink-IRC policy... (StarLink hosts our meeting
room)...
It’s up to all channel ops
to do 2 things... uphold StarLink guidelines... and keep order... at that
level, ops may ban anyone who is disruptive without explanation... we as a
group... have chosen to soften that policy somewhat... and give people
warnings... then the 400+ ops decide on bans and give the person (if they
want)...a chance to explain what happened this is chiefly in the context of
online sexual encounters... by meeting in #SLAA for the safety of the room
since we are recovering addicts... it's my view that channel ops need the
autonomy to set a ban when... someone is flirting or trolling... or being
disruptive... to the group Starling
policy by the way... allows a network wide ban for harassment of others in
private message only... we as a group do try to be compassionate... but it's my view that we must consider the
whole group... not to mention the sanity of *all* the ops who have volunteered
to take on responsibility so if ops are
allowed to set at least short term bans...
they don't have responsibility without the wherewithal to carry it
out ...any discussion?
TimF adds, A few
clarifications and additional points... Rick mentioned 400+ ops above. To clarify that, we currently have 26
operators, but for the last 3+ years have elections for officers. We have 5 officers. Those five officers are what Rick means by
400+, simple as that. Secondly, any op
can technically kick and/or ban but what we are stating here is that we have implemented
a policy of our own that states to institute a ban, officers (at least 2) need
to become involved and subsequently at least those same 2 need to agree to
lifting the ban (according to our guidelines).
Thirdly, I mentioned earlier about StarLink having the ability to g-line
or k-line someone(s). This would
prevent them from gaining access to ANY StarLink-IRC room (including #SCA and #SAA) but, for what it
is worth, I have NEVER known of this occurring in any of our three fellowships
to date (and we've been around for many years). It is just a last ditch effort in a real problem case. That sums up my background. As to where I'm at, I have to admit that I'm
confused about thinking our policies had been changed by group conscience from
what is posted on our website. This
happened when George was still chairperson, but I can't find record of it. The only significant difference is about the
offended party having a chance to "argue" their case... not only with at least two officers, but
*also* the offended party(ies). It's
not at our website, but I thought this was changed by group conscience (and did
come up recently by 2 parties) so that's where I'm at a loss (for what it's
worth).
* TimF would gladly
entertain a motion that any operator can ban an offending party for up to two
days with immediate follow-up to the officers for discussion about
keeping/lifting/handling the ban.
* TimF seconds Jenel's
amended motion substituting "for up to seven days"
The motion was voted upon
and 5 out of 7 carries it
TimF mentioned that he has
two brief announcements and one item to add to new business for next
meeting
1) Our officer email is now
slaaonline@yahoo.com
2) Our website is more
simple: https://www.angelfire.com/on/slaa
3) I think we need to
address (at our next meeting) an offending party having a chance to address
their complaint WITH the offended party(ies)
RickB thanks Tim; we'll put
that on the next month's agenda.
Mike asks, I had volunteered
to help lead noon meetings and was directed to the meeting for info... I have 3
months recovery time and 1+ month’s sobriety
TimF replied, you simply
have to
1) Let RickB know your email
address and
2) Let RickB know a password
to use for CStar.
Email Rick at
slaaonline@yahoo.com
Meeting ended at: 23:27:23
Minutes respectfully
submitted by rusty7067 (James).