On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 10:30 -0700, US National Coordinator wrote:
> A notification, on the other hand, is already a done deal. Since you
> can't deny it, there's not much point in focusing on whether it should
> be in play. Questions are still useful to clarify anything unclear in
> the mechanics, or to make sure that the ST understands what is
> included in the notification, but not so much about debating the
> merits of the item. It's about being informed, not about whether it's
> a good idea.
Perhaps this is just me, but given that the item in question is
expressly prohibited from being a notification, it seems that debating
its appropriateness is quite relevant. (Yes, I know you've said that
they were told that Alex had that authority, but all the comments in the
database were posted before they were told that.)
If a higher level ST tries to pass something off as a notification when
the rules require that it be an approval, I'd expect the ST's below to
raise that issue, and to withhold approval until the matter was settled.
> Was that enough to warrant disciplinary action? Not by itself, but it
> in combination with the unaddressed CoC violations on the part of his
> assistant, yeah, it doesn't really make for a good officer.
You keep making this assertion in one form or another, and it's still
not true. You may feel that Jason didn't do enough to address them, or
even that he did so little as to justify punishing him (although given
how petty the additional things you suggested Jason could have done,
that seems like quite a stretch). But it's simply not true that they
were unaddressed.
Henry Towsner
US2003112558