I. Chronology of Recent Events
=====================
A. Although there was a long pre-history for this dispute,
Ajit Sinha 's message of November 12
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0095.html
initiated the most recent controversy. Ajit accused Rakesh
in that message of violating the January 24 Advisory
Committee statement (hereafter call "the agreement") - Section
# 2 of http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0701/0080.html
B. Upon reading Ajit's message, I immediately instructed everyone
that the discussion on this matter would proceed *OFF-LIST*:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0096.html
We had already determined in an Advisory Committee (AC)
"Statement on Flames" that in the future all complaints
concerning alleged flames (or, by inference, charges of violations
of the January agreement) must be made *OFF-LIST*: see 4.b) of
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0707/0099.html
C. *AFTER* B.) Rakesh sent *two* on-list replies to Ajit's message:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0097.html
and http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0098.html
The second message violated two policies: 1) it alle!
ged *ON-LIST* that
another member had written a flame; and 2) it qu
oted Ajit
("your stupid editorializing") and hence was a violation of the January
24 agreement. It was all the more outrageous a violation because he
had _just_ been instructed that discussions on that issue were to
take place *OFF-LIST*.
D. I replied immediately to Rakesh:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0099.html
insisting that he not again discuss the matter on-list.
E. Almost immediately afterwards, Rakesh used that same
expression - "editorializing" ("oh just some editorializing").
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0107.html
Everyone on the list by this time knew that was a reference to
what Ajit had written earlier that day.
F. I *once again* instructed Rakesh not t!
o continue to quote Ajit
on-list:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0110.html
He was told in no uncertain terms to "*STOP IT, NOW!*".
G Almost immediately afterwards, Rakesh once again referred to
"editorializing" in *two* separate messages in reply to Ian H:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0113.html
and http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0114.html
Anyone who had read the sequence of posts that day was aware
that the reference to "editorializing" was a reference to what
Ajit had written.
H. In reply to these events - and what he perceived as the
unwillingness of the li!
st administrators to act against Rakesh,
Ajit resigned:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0125.html
Ajit remarked - among other things - that there was a had "blatently
thumming of nose" by Rakesh at the list coordinator and that he
had repeatedly violated the January agreement.
II. The above - beyond a shadow of a doubt - establishes that
Rakesh Bhandari:
A. Violated list policy by alledging on-list that he been flamed;
B. Violated the directive to discuss Ajit's complaint off-list
rather than on-list.
C. *Repeatedly* violated the January 24 agreement by referring to
what Ajit had written.
The January agreement specifically says that there are to be
"NO EXCEPTIONS" and that any violations of the agreement by
Rakesh would result in a suspension for a "substantial period" of
time.
Given the above, there is NO ALTERNATIVE allowable under list
policy other than to suspend Rakesh for a substantial period of
time. Accordingly, Rakesh has been suspended for a substantial
period of time -- the amount of which will be decided shortly.
D. COM!
MENT
Whether Rakesh did or did n ot initiate this exchange is besides the
point. He violated list policy and must be accountable for his
actions. The policies which Rakesh has been suspended for were
all agreed to by consensus by the AC and muyself. In addition,
he himself agreed to adhere to the January agreement. These
policies were re-discussed recently and re-affirmed by the AC.
It is unfornate indeed that any comrade is involuntarily suspended
from membership. At least one listmember recently took exception
to the list policy. If others on the list believe that the treatment
of Rakesh is unfair and/or unwarranted then -- as I said the other
day -- we can have an open, frank, full, public, democratic discussion
of Rakesh's status in which everyone on the list can participate followed
by a vote.
*After* there is agreement on what to do about!
Rakesh, then should
others wish to do so, we can have an open, fra
nk, full, public
discussion on the actions of the list coordinator and/or other list
administrators followed by a vote of confidence or no confidence.
Should we decided to have such on-list discussions followed by a vote,
then we would have to figure out how to organize the voting process
as we have not had a full vote of the membership on any question
previously. I think, though, that the technical details could be worked
out and we could - should we wish - have these votes.
In solidarity, Jerry