Jon,
> For several administrations now, back to when Jen Kuiper was NC and
> Jason and I were her ANC's, the general guideline has been to praise
> in public and punish in private. My apologies if I was unclear; I was
> not citing bylaws chapter-and-verse from the MH, but rather a broad
> policy.
>
> Hope that clarifies-
I'm afraid this has only left me more confused. I know that some officers in the Camarilla have informally retained the "punish in private" policy which was removed from the current edition of the Membership Handbook, but I understood that it wasn't typically applied when the person accused waived it.
In this case, in particular, it seems a bit late to apply it. After all, the MST has already given us a long list of rules Jason has (allegedly) violated. Refusing to give actual details or substantiating evidence to protect his privacy seems at this late stage seems a little perverse.
However, if Alex is uncomfortable providing any details to the domain, perhaps there is another solution. Almost everything Jason is accused of doing could be easily inferred just from his own e-mails. Since Jason has denied the MST's charges, perhaps the burden of defending his reputation should fall on him: he could submit his e-mails to the list (suitably redacted, of course). If he leaves anything out, then since he has already given permission, the MST could simply send whatever e-mails he's missing. I think that information would go a long way to satisfying my, and many domain members', desire to better understand the situation.
Henry Towsner
US2003112558