Unblock Walter on Talk

[zmetzing]

The durating of Walter’s suspension from posting on Talk forum as discussed at the board meeting was 90 days.

This does seem like an important tidbit to be missing from the minutes. As written, they currently indicate an indefinite ban.

[mblatz]

Was this something discussed but not confirmed?

As written, they currently indicate an indefinite ban.

Yes and yes…hence the concern. We’ll need an official ruling from the Board, I guess.

@bscharff or @LisaSelk may remmebr specifics or have recieved specific instructions electronically as well before enacting the block.

[artg_dms]

True.
However I would prefer the membership have the authority to override a BoD action/decision on a case by case basis instead of having to recall/remove a BoD member(s).

[ESmith]

The durating of Walter’s suspension from posting on Talk forum as discussed at the board meeting was 90 days. How this missed being documented in the meeting minutes is both hard to understand as well as very troublesome to me. @ESmith ?

My recollection of the motion itself was an indefinite suspension as noted in the minutes. I recall 90 days being discussed but not passed.

[artg_dms]

My recollection also. Alex and Luke discussed a 90 day block. I think Robert brought up an indefinite block - based on previous complaints. This was what was voted on.

[SewingStuff]

I think it was highly inappropriate for Robert to even vote on this issue given both his past complaint and the complaint against him regarding his behavior on Talk towards Walter.

He should have abstained.

[LisaSelk]

My recollection of the motion itself was an indefinite suspension as noted in the minutes. I recall 90 days being discussed but not passed.

That’s my recollection as well…

[quote="mblatz, post:22, topic:18846"] @LisaSelk may remmebr specifics or have recieved specific instructions electronically as well before enacting the block. [/quote] Nothing sent to us electronically about it. The decision was made and the instructions to block him were followed at the end of the meeting.
[quote="artg_dms, post:14, topic:18846"] You can file a motion for the next membership mtng and if there is a quorum of voting members present, take a vote. Depending on whose interpretation you get, a membership vote can over ride the BoD. Put it on the agenda.

https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Regular_Member_Meeting_20170413
[/quote]

This is what I would suggest… Considering that it will be election night, there is a strong likelihood that quorum will be met.

That would also allow other members who aren’t following this thread to participate in the discussion - and vote, if it comes to that. Membership Meetings are where these types of discussions/issues (votes for changes, etc…) should go up for vote. The Board Meetings should be used for major purchases, etc…

[lukeiamyourfather]

You can file a motion for the next membership mtng and if there is a quorum of voting members present, take a vote. Depending on whose interpretation you get, a membership vote can over ride the BoD. Put it on the agenda.

Sort of. Votes in the past initiated by members probably were not valid (e.g. Frank’s stuff, the logo stuff). If you read the bylaws members can vote on elections proposed by directors. I need to look at this again (recalling from memory).

I’d likely propose this for a vote but members don’t have carte blanche. This is a dangerous notion that they do.

[Photomancer]

Erik’s recall matches mine: indefinite. My recollection is there was discussion as to the duration of various time limits, but indefinite was what finally passed as there wasn’t an agreement. My perception is this was a compromise between a short period (which lacked votes) and permanent ban (which lacked votes), meaning to me it could be left in place or removed at anytime without “shortening” a longer ban that might have been imposed.

This was discussed by the BoD and much member input about both complaints as they were tied together. Since there aren’t verbatim minutes kept so this is not fully reflected, but it did occur. If it appears otherwise from a reading of the minutes, as someone that was there I would say don’t assume the brevity in the minutes reflects something that went through fast without discussion.

[jswilson64]

This thread reminded me to request my voting rights!

[zmetzing]

Another instance where Walter’s silencing has prevented the effective transfer of information to all of DMS.

HAAS: How to schedule the "Domino" Qualification Test

I agree with Nick, if you’ve taken and paid for the class, we want you to retake it get to where you can use the machine. Our goal is to get more people using this machine - it’s a great and unique asset that most people would never access to.

Reminder: BoD elections coming up. Vote as a fully-informed member.

[artg_dms]

Yup
Get informed.
Check the Event Cal. & come out to “Meet the Candidates”
Activate your voting rights.
And vote.

[nicksilva]

Erik’s recall matches mine: indefinite.

all the more reason it should be brought up and voted on in the Member meeting. Even if it does not overturn the BOD, if passed it send the message to the board that ENOUGH is ENOUGH time has passed. Time to reinstate.

[Haley_Moore]

I’m not on the board or moderation team, but if it were me I’d keep Walter blocked. If he’s going to post through surrogates, I want to see an earnest effort in those posts to be productive and positive. I haven’t seen that.

Maybe one of his surrogates can convince him to focus on threads like the one above?

[SewingStuff]

This is the most errant nonsense.

If people were banned for being just irritating, no one except Kessinger and Chris Marlowe would ever be able to post.

We’re all terrible, but the only one banned is someone who angered the Board. When I see all of the other Talk terrors banned, maybe then I change my mind.

(Edit-some of the rest of you are cool too, but Chris and Kessinger were the first who came to mind)

[benhubel]

I am curious what was different about this case that caused it to be a board decision rather than a forum moderator decision? Does the board ruling on this case create a precedent that the moderators are now expected to follow for similar cases, or is it a special case scenario?

[DanielHooper]

The forum mods are generally not enabled to block people on their own initiative, but rather to moderate with thread splits, locking, and possibly permanently deleting heavily flagged posts.

Since Talk members are actual paying members, and it’s used so heavily by the membership for communications, a ban is considered a discipline action and that is handled by the board.

(To be clear, this is not an “official position” but it’s more or less how it works out)

[benhubel]

Thank you for that clarification. I think it makes a bit more sense now.

[artg_dms]

Since Talk members are actual paying members

I don’t think this accurate. My understanding is Talk is open to the public. You do need to be a DMS member to access the the “members only” posts.

Anyone care to verify?

[DanielHooper]

My understanding is Talk is open to the public.

I’m referring to the idea that Talk is supposedly an official communications platform for DMS. If you’re a member, you have some right to access that (unless it’s been taken away by discipline action) whereas someone who is not a member who is disruptive could be banned without depriving them of that, since they aren’t an org. member anyway – members of the public don’t have any claim to DMS resources the way a member does as outlined in the member agreement. But we make things open for public use to serve our mission. TL;DR if a non-member is being disruptive, the process for asking them to leave is much simpler.

(Sorry, I think I left this part out: my original post refers to MEMBERS’ use of the forum only. Non-members are in a different class and IMO could be banned with less process)