Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
4. NM Committee review
----------------------
The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the matter
in
private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an
inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision.
I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what exactly is meant
by "[The members of the NMC] are expected not to solicit further
input" - does that mean that the members of the NMC are not
allowed to ask questions about facts outside/above those
explicitly presented by DAM and those contained in the written
appealer statement, i.e. the NMC members are forbidden to do any
sort of research about the situation on their own? If yes, that
would seem like an inappropriate limitation to me.
As written, it is not an inquiry. But a check of the decision that DAMs have
made. NMC should not need to dig around for long. And should not be forced by
someone claiming "but if you only ask this one more, or this one, then you MAY
see the light". Nah. Its both sides giving their views, and the NMC deciding
on that. End. If one side can not present enough to support their case, then
their case fails, it shouldn't be up to the NMC to dig out the stuff for them.
Of course we can not forbid them to (say) use google or something, if they
want to. But thats their own personal fun, not required of the process.
5. NM-Committee vote
--------------------
After 7 days discussion, or earlier if unanimously agreed by the NMC,
NM-Frontdesk will ask the secretary to conduct a secret, 3-day-long vote,
with the following options:
1. Uphold the decision of the DAMs
2. Overturn the decision of the DAMs
Committee members otherwise involved in a case must abstain.
DAM members are not allowed to partake in the vote.
A simple majority decides the vote; in the event of a tie, the decision is
not overturned.
Abstained or absent votes are not counted. If more than half of the NMC
(excluding DAM) abstain or do not vote, the decision is not overturned.
[Description of how the vote can turn out bad for the person]
Well. I see your point. But I do disagree with your solution:
Therefore the clause "If more than half of the NMC (excluding DAM) abstain
or do not vote, the decision is not overturned" would IMHO need to be
removed completely from the rules.
I don't think so. We don't want to end up with a system where, say, you "just"
put pressure on a dozen people to abstain, then have "your friend" vote
overturn, and boo, all is fine again.
So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote goes, I
don't think just deleting that one sentence is it. But I'm not an expert in
voting systems, so am happy for any input. Could go with a quorum (and then
count abstains for it) and requiring a (3 quarter?) majority of voters?! Could
go with something else? Somebody come up with a nice thing, please. :)
--
bye, Joerg
Reply to: