[wingspan33]

What do we all think on this?

US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow or tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP), and grounds for disciplinary action, and may also be subject to civil or criminal proceedings.

[Bill Cummings]

What do we all think on this?

US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow or tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP), and grounds for disciplinary action, and may also be subject to civil or criminal proceedings.

[Bob Kuczewski]

US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow or tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP), and grounds for disciplinary action, and may also be subject to civil or criminal proceedings.

I mostly like it, but the second "allow" seems like a mistake. That's like saying we're not going to tolerate anyone who allows anyone to report a concern in good faith. Here are the "permutations" of that sentence:

1. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to retaliate [against] any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
2. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to punish any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
3. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to allow any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
4. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
5. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to retaliate [against] any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
6. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to punish any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
7. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to allow any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
8. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
9. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate [against] any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
10. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to punish any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
    
11. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to allow any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
    
12. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.

Do you see any that are actually contrary to what we might want (ignoring any case or minor grammar incompatibilities)? Which ones?

[wingspan33]

I looked over the text as "borrowed" and I've attempted to clarify it some. Better grammar as well perhaps? Here's my only slightly modified version -

“Whistle Blower” Protection

Regardless of outcome, the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will support the complaint(s) made by any member - as well as any member’s right to express concerns
in good faith. The US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow, or tolerate attempts by any member or group of members to retaliate, punish, or in
any way harm any individual or individuals who report a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks
Hang Gliding Association's (Organizational Integrity/Safety In Flight Operations?) Guide and grounds for disciplinary action. Such retaliatory acts may also be subject
to civil or criminal proceedings.

Notice that I made up to other sections of the US Hawk's future By-Laws/S.O.P.s. They would be the "Organizational Integrity" Operating Procedures and the "Safety In Flight Operations" Operating Procedures.

Does the above version sound any better? Any/all comments are welcome.

.

Keep in mind - Bob posted while I was typing this and I have not read his post yet.

EDIT - I took out the extra "allow". It did seem to confuse things a bit.

[Bill Cummings]

US Hawks Whistle Blower Protection SOP Clause wrote:US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow or tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP), and grounds for disciplinary action, and may also be subject to civil or criminal proceedings.
Thanks Bob, that one got past me. Good catch! The meaning does look slippery at that point.

Does Scott's post have a tighter rein on the language?

“Whistle Blower” Protection

Regardless of outcome, the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will support the complaint(s) made by any member - as well as any member’s right to express concerns
in good faith. The US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow, or tolerate attempts by any member or group of members to retaliate, punish, or in
any way harm any individual or individuals who report a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks
Hang Gliding Association's (Organizational Integrity/Safety In Flight Operations?) Guide and grounds for disciplinary action. Such retaliatory acts may also be subject
to civil or criminal proceedings.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This is a situation where we might have several competing documents proposed. Now if we follow the traditional "nominate, second, vote" procedure for each proposal, then whoever jumps in and nominates first might have an advantage. For example, I might jump in and nominate my favorite version. At that point we might end up voting mine up or down without really considering the alternatives. That makes the result partially dependent on the order of the proposals. Since this is a forum where people are not following along minute by minute, that "order dependency" is even more harmful to an objective outcome.

So this might be a case where we want to accumulate a set of proposals and then vote on them using some multiple choice voting system.

With those thoughts in mind .. I'm going to do what I said, and "jump in" with this motion:

  I move that we open the topic to specific proposals which must be flagged with the "nominate" tag and contain a unique title, and that we accept such nominations until 2 am on April 2nd (PDT). At that time, we will begin voting in this same topic with the voting closing at 5am on April 5th (the 2,2, and 5,5 were chosen to be more easily remembered). The voting will be done using the simple Condorcet method, and the list of choices shall include a choice titled "None of the Above" which allows for the case where we really aren't happy with the nominations.  

Would anyone like to second that motion?

[Bill Cummings]

This is a situation where we might have several competing documents proposed. Now if we follow the traditional "nominate, second, vote" procedure for each proposal, then whoever jumps in and nominates first might have an advantage. For example, I might jump in and nominate my favorite version. At that point we might end up voting mine up or down without really considering the alternatives. That makes the result partially dependent on the order of the proposals. Since this is a forum where people are not following along minute by minute, that "order dependency" is even more harmful to an objective outcome.

So this might be a case where we want to accumulate a set of proposals and then vote on them using some multiple choice voting system.

With those thoughts in mind .. I'm going to do what I said, and "jump in" with this motion:

  I move that we open the topic to specific proposals which must be flagged with the "nominate" tag and contain a unique title, and that we accept such nominations until 2 am on April 2nd (PDT). At that time, we will begin voting in this same topic with the voting closing at 5am on April 5th (the 2,2, and 5,5 were chosen to be more easily remembered). The voting will be done using the simple Condorcet method, and the list of choices shall include a choice titled "None of the Above" which allows for the case where we really aren't happy with the nominations.  

Would anyone like to second that motion?

  Second  

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for the second Bill.

I vote   Yes   on the motion.

[Bill Cummings]

Thanks for the second Bill.

I vote   Yes   on the motion.

I vote   Yess   on Bob's motion (Re: 2,2 - 5,5 etc.)

[wingspan33]

I vote   Yes   on the motion