Ethel, thank you for that clarification.
Ethel wrote: No. I am saying that I might reveal information from elsewhere on the board, if and only if I believed it would help rather than hurt people to do so. This is what wilko threatened to do, and for the same reason. (We both have friends from TORC who feel massively hurt over this closed board.) I specifically agree not to do this with the contents of the Invites forum, however.
I wish I had straight in my mind at this moment, just what the banning procedures are. Are they in place yet? Have we even articulated what a banning offense is? It's not that I haven't read through the board policies and tried to get a grasp of them, but I definitely do not have them all straight in my mind at this point.
If I understand your purpose correctly, Ethel, I think this remark from Lidless' post is the kernel of the issue you are seeking to officially address:
Quote: I want to give Lidless and those who agree with them the opportunity to rectify what they see as "just wrong."
Lidless accused the arbitration panel of a whitewash (a very offensive and hurtful remark, IMO), because you didn't look at what he sees as the deeper question of the private nature of the board in the hearing. (Btw, I think the hearing was handled excellently, in the only way it could have bedn handled at this point in time.)
TheLidlessEyes wrote: I would have looked at what the board is. Closed and private.
I think we need to make some sort of official determination on this question: does the closed and private nature of the board at this point in time confer on the membership the obligation NOT to make known to non-members what is said here?
As I understand things, we can't do this through the official Constitutional process, as that isn't far enough along. We can't wait 'til the process is ready, because shortly after that it looks as though the board will be open, and then the point would be moot.
I would suggest that we set up a poll thread somewhere with this question, rather than having a hearing on a ban. Then we would have an idea (though not "legal" and official as the ratifications will be) of where the membership stands. That would in turn give members an awareness of whether they are violating the ethos of the board as it is understood by most members currently, when they share b77 information with those outside the board. It would also give the jurors in the recent hearing some solid ground to stand on in confronting the rather slanderous, IMO, accusation of a whitewash in the arbitration hearing, if they feel the need to do so.
I actually don't think the discussion should be held in Bike Racks, because I think it is an issue that concerns everyone; the fact that some people are concerned about confidentiality, makes it a concern for everyone.