From: Diva Las Vegas organizers (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Date: Fri Dec 26 2008 - 08:38:59 CST
In this mailing:
Org List
Rights and responsibilities
Administrivia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Org List:
This is the DLV 2009 Organizational Mailing List (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Replies to this message will be forwarded to the DLVORG list and not
the DLV-Announce or DLV-Discuss list.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rights and responsibilities:
Ginger writes:
>What rights/responsibilty do or should we give to the event
>organizer (host) if he or she is uncomfortable with the
>behavior or appearance of the offending gues{t}?
This is a very good question, and brings up some items which
are covered in existing standing rules and in this motion.
For those who want the bottom line only, it's very clear that
the primary coordinator of record has the option of requiring
an attendee to go change or telling the attendee to leave.
I see the key words here as "do" and "should", and, IMAO, much
of the "should" is not covered, nor would it be practical to
try to include it in this motion, which is, by intent, limited
to the topic of admission and exclusion.
Let's talk about the "do" first. In our standing rules, in
particular the Cpolicy of 2004, we have the following:
+3. For Major Venue Activities and DLV Mainstream Activities,
+the responsibility for enforcement of dress, behavior, and
+restroom policy lies primarily on the organizer(s) of record.
+In the event the organizer(s) of record requests assistance,
+does not wish to confront, or fails to take action, the DLV
+organizers (members of the DLVORG group) present may, as a
+whole, take action.
This, at the time, affirmed our defacto practice that the
primary coordinator of record was "God" over the activity,
assisted by, and in some ways accountable to, the ORG group
as a whole.
This is affirmed in the current motion, which is, by intent,
limited in scope to the topic of admission and exclusion.
+The primary Coordinator of record shall be the final
+authority as to who is admitted to, denied admission
+to, or asked to leave any individual DLV activity,
+subject to the following:
The motion, as presented, doesn't change anything. It does not
give any additional authority or responsibility, nor does it
set any new limits on such. It affirms and clarifies what is
already on paper and in practice.
So, to answer the question on the "do" part, we've very
clearly given the primary coordinator of record the authority
and responsibility over BDR issues at that activity, which
does include the right to deny admission, require an attendee
to go change, or to tell someone to leave.
I see all of this "do" part as appropriate and workable, and
not needing any change, either to the existing standing rules
or to the motion on the floor.
Now, for the "should" part, I see a couple great weaknesses
in our overall agreement as to how we do things, and one point
that should be clarified, most of which are not intended to
be covered in this motion.
The big hole in our system is that nobody is required to take
any action, even with the most blatant of offenders. We've
defined who MAY take action, including the OPTION for other
ORG people to step in should the primary coordinator of record
fail to act, but nowhere does anything REQUIRE any action.
No, I don't want to add anything on to this motion to cover
required action. This motion deals with admission and exclusion
only and the actions that, IMAO, should be required, are far
less severe than denial of admission or expulsion.
Another shortcoming, which I don't think we will really be able
to do much about, is that many situations which are difficult
or impossible to control are not covered. Things such as the
behavior/dress/restroom related issues when our people are in
mainstream public, but not under the umbrella of any specific
DLV activity.
One big "what-if" which has been brought up many times has
partly been covered, and that is the case where the primary
coordinator of record and the members of the ORG group who
are present disagree as to how a situation is to be handled.
This is partly clarified ...
+All unresolved issues are to err on the side of inclusion
+should there be unresolved disputes or disagreements, ties
+or a lack of a quorum, etc.
Another item is potentially a big can of worms, a can which
might be best left sealed. We have no official channels by
which one attendee is to express concerns and complaints
about other attendees. An attendee who wishes to air a
complaint usually seeks out the nearest volunteer, the
volunteer he or she knows best, the volunteer present who
appears to be most senior, or the volunteer believed to be
the one who is most likely to take action.
I don't think we need anything more along this line. It has
been shown that whenever there is an issue of some significance,
there will be multiple reports coming from multiple attendees,
to multiple volunteers, all expressing the same concern and all
telling more or less the same story.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrivia:
This is the Diva Las Vegas 2009 organizational list.
One address for all items regarding this list, additions, removals,
changes, submissions, questions, etc.:
dlvorg@geekbabe.com <--- NOTE: all lower case
Diva Las Vegas 2009
May 11 - 16, 2009
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Archives of this list appear on the web at:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org09arc/
To unsubscribe: Simply reply to this message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in either the Subject: field or the first line of an OTHERWISE BLANK
message body. The word "unsubscribe" (case is insignificant) should be
the only item in the subject field or the first line of the message,
justified to the left.
To send material to this list: Send submission as regular e-mail to
the address: dlvorg@geekbabe.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 03 2009 - 07:12:05 CDT