LOL. Are you trying to be funny minstrel? Why else do you think the editors are there if not for profit?
Call it what you like, macdesign. You were openly advertising a "service" of some sorts that would not have existed were you not a DMOZ editor. You can rationalize that any way you like but it is still using your position at DMOZ for personal gain and profit. Apparently, other editors have been fired for doping that. Why weren't you?
Because (as he told himself already) he was delivering a service anybody (even you) could be doing. It was a service based on public available information. Anybody may use the public DMOZ in any way they want as long as they follow the DMOZ requirements. Asking money for a service based on the public information is completely OK.
You sound like a politician explaining how his fraudulent expense account claims weren't really wrong. In both cases, illegal or not, it reveals moral bankruptcy. And if there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, why did he stop doing it?
minstrel, did he or did he not abuse his editorship by offering this service? Let's stick to facts please, and not what it 'sounds like' to you.
The grounds for removal are published in http://dmoz.org/guidelines/accounts.html#removal If macdesign did not commit any offence as indicated there then there are no grounds for removal. Meta editors cannot remove an editor for activities which do not breach those rules - that would be abuse of their powers for which they could be removed. So they can't. That prevents another criticism of DMOZ in the past - editors who claim they were removed without good reason. You can't have it both ways - a clear removals policy and then remove people who don't breach it. If you are suggesting there should be additional classes of act that should be grounds for removal then that is another matter. Those sort of decisions lie with Netscape/AOL and the Admins - editors are not involved. If they added what macdesign was doing to the list then obviously he wouldn't have done it or he would have been removed. Editors do sometimes ask where the lines are drawn, the usual reply is to err on the side of caution as appearances can be deceptive and reflect negatively.
May I remind you that this is not the Resource Zone and that you are a guest here? Where did you ever get the idea that you make the rules here? You have no idea about ethics, do you? The question, as I have already stated, is not whether he "abused his editorship" but whether he sought to use his position for personal gain or profit. And clearly he did. And clearly someone realized that, since he recently removed that offer. See above. This is like reading responses to charges of corruption by the Liberal party in Canada these days. Ethics in positions of authority means keeping personal profit and personal interest at arms length. Macdesign clearly violated that basic premise. Whether or not what he did is on the list of prohibited behaviors is irrelevant. My main question is: Is what he did acceptable in an organization like DMOZ or not? If you believe it is acceptable behavior, then DMOZ has a problem.
Since I have not seen what was posted on macdesign’s website, I can not comment on this particular situation. It can not be irrelevant at all. Written rules and guidelines are the only means to evaluate and judge an act. No interpretations or guesses can be imposed at will. All this will lead to is anarchy, not justice.
In the same time acceptance and refusal of web sites is based on interpretations, guesses and anarchy with no justice while DMOZ refuses to enforce any written rules and guidelines.
OK, try http://editors.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html - this lays out what is acceptable and what isn't. Again this is Netscape/AOL policy not, I repeat not, within the remit of editors and Netscape/AOL clearly don't see it as a problem. The question was why macdesign had not been removed and that is the answer. Whether you agree or not he has not broken the rules as they currently stand. "In some cases, an editor's business affiliation overlaps their involvement in the directory... whose participation may benefit both the editor and the directory. Instances when the involvement is mutually beneficial are acceptable, however, the primary focus and goal should always be to serve the best interests of the ODP and the editing community." This may be one of those DMOZ aspects which you see as a fundamental flaw so there is probably not much room for agreement. It doesn't really matter what editors think on this one - it is a corporate policy well outside our influence.
Riz and brizzie, let me rephrase my question: Regardless of whether a behavior is or is not listed as an official infraction, do you believe it is ethically and morally acceptable for an editor to attempt to personally profit from his position as a DMOZ editor? You may not have seen the page but that is indeed what macdesign was doing: Selling information and advice about DMOZ as coming from a DMOZ editor. Whether or not it was public knowledge isn't the point. Any credibility he had as the author of this information derived directly from his position as a DMOZ editor.
I remember clearly reading macdesign's site some time ago. And I must say I completely agree with his description of the service: So, either we didn't understand the service the same way, or you didn't read his offer, or you just don't care what was proposed and you're just complaining for the fun of it.
3sa, see above: The likelihood of getting anyone to pay him for this information came from his position as a DMOZ editor, whether or not that information was public. If you don't see a problem with that, I have a problem with you being an editor.
Does anyone knows how many editors are selling information as the side line income to their usual corruption (adding their sites, deleting competition,..)?
Come on, minstrel, your question was: Using one’s position as an editor at DOMZ for personal gain is what I responded to. brizzie quoted the guidelines correctly. You will not find justification of editorial abuse in these guidelines anywhere. If the ambiguity in the guidelines is perceived as an invitation to flaunt one’s position as an editor to gain monetary compensation, then the authorities in charge may need to address this aspect specifically. As it stands now, such an offense, proven by facts, is grounds for dismissal.
OK. Now I'm confused. What macdesign was doing was attemtping to personally profit from his status as a DMOZ editor. Brizzie tells me that's not against the rules. You tell me it is against the rules.