Return to Minutes Listing Page

Minutes for Members Meeting September 15, 2001

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: 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...

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 ( 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

2) Our website is more simple:

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

Meeting ended at: 23:27:23

Minutes respectfully submitted by rusty7067 (James).