Oh, Jewel, we cross posted.
Actually we were just discussing in the Naith whether to lock this thread or not and leave it as a kind of announcement. We will do so if the members feel uncomfortable with the topic.
Ax, your disagreement is duly noted. Is there anyone else who has strong feeling about this one way or the other?
Jn
Artie's Quest for Democracy
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
I'm not interested in postmortems. For one thing, B77 isn't dead.
But I do think that discussing how the concept of governing as it applies to web communities is a worthwhile topic, ESPECIALLY given the experience most of us have.
If we can keep the discussion focused in that direction I believe it will be both more productive and less likely to go bad.
But I do think that discussing how the concept of governing as it applies to web communities is a worthwhile topic, ESPECIALLY given the experience most of us have.
If we can keep the discussion focused in that direction I believe it will be both more productive and less likely to go bad.
It does seem to me that we are in a unique position to illuminate this topic.
But I also acknowledge that it might be hard to talk about the principles of governance without bringing examples, and that this might hit wounds that we don't even know are there.
Under no circumstance will I do anything to threaten the emotional stability of the board, and if people are feeling their blood pressure rise when they look at the thread, I would really prefer to shut it down.
Jn
But I also acknowledge that it might be hard to talk about the principles of governance without bringing examples, and that this might hit wounds that we don't even know are there.
Under no circumstance will I do anything to threaten the emotional stability of the board, and if people are feeling their blood pressure rise when they look at the thread, I would really prefer to shut it down.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I'm not sure how I feel about it being here but as long as it is...
...one thing that struck me often during the process is the attempts to in some way mirror the real world systems onto our boards. It did not strike me as a reasonable approach. RL democracy is important and valued because of the (ideally) desire to protect a very wide variety of interests. In RL, we have a lot of things that we want and need and fight for - love, sex, money, homes, food, medicine, jobs, on and on and on. These are vitally important things which makes ensuring that they are all, as much as possible (ideally), protected. Thus the importance of a complex governing system with checks and balances and so forth. But on the boards, what is it that we're protecting? Memberships and posts. That's it. Trying to create an huge, elaborate RL-like system to protect two relatively minor (in the big scheme of things) values, struck me as immense overkill.
Or maybe I'm just saying, the government is only as important as what it's there to protect. Their needs to be an appropriate proportion. IMO, of course.
eta: which is where I think elsha's point comes in. I believe too many people felt, at least intuitively, that the proportion became inappropriate skewed.
...one thing that struck me often during the process is the attempts to in some way mirror the real world systems onto our boards. It did not strike me as a reasonable approach. RL democracy is important and valued because of the (ideally) desire to protect a very wide variety of interests. In RL, we have a lot of things that we want and need and fight for - love, sex, money, homes, food, medicine, jobs, on and on and on. These are vitally important things which makes ensuring that they are all, as much as possible (ideally), protected. Thus the importance of a complex governing system with checks and balances and so forth. But on the boards, what is it that we're protecting? Memberships and posts. That's it. Trying to create an huge, elaborate RL-like system to protect two relatively minor (in the big scheme of things) values, struck me as immense overkill.
Or maybe I'm just saying, the government is only as important as what it's there to protect. Their needs to be an appropriate proportion. IMO, of course.
eta: which is where I think elsha's point comes in. I believe too many people felt, at least intuitively, that the proportion became inappropriate skewed.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46248
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
I am interested in having a discussion on Internet governance models, especially because I am curious to see how people's perspectives have evolved, if at all, over the past year. In theory.
However, I really, really would prefer not to discuss the concrete example of board77, i.e. "Such-and-such worked in the Charter, and such-and-such did not." Whatever people believe at this point about the results of our "democratic experiment," when we post at HoF, we are no longer taking part in that experiment, and are affirmatively making a choice to take part in a system that began by repudiating its model, as best as I can tell (from presenting putative members with a "take-it-or-leave-it" set of rules at the time of joining, to creating a hidden forum for administrative discussions, to barring certain language and discussion topics that were allowed and encouraged at board77.) Despite all of us acceding to this system, however, we are of at least three different minds about it - there are those who find this system better, those who are indifferent, and those who find it worse than democracy but are nonetheless willing to put up with it for reasons of their own. I think there is no way to have a discussion that cites to our b77 experiences without delving deeply into the legitimacy and/or preferability of each model. That way lies drama and madness - even before we get to whatever residual feelings each of us may have about the events of October-December 2005 on b77.
If people think we can have a theoretical discussion on Internet governance, so much the better. However, I think Artie is correct to confine his "research" specifically on b77 to PMs (though I personally have no time or interest re: participating in a PM exchange with someone hoping to advance the "democracy movement" online.) And I think that if this discussion is going to revisit b77 history, I would prefer that it is terminated before it begins. Every time we have tried to revisit that topic on HoF, it has led to lengthy, angst-filled posts, hurt feelings, and weeks or months of progress lost with respect to everyone feeling comfortable here. Unfortunately, I am not sure that we as a group CAN have a discussion on Internet governance without revisiting b77 history - because it is so integral a part of most of our views on the subject.
However, I really, really would prefer not to discuss the concrete example of board77, i.e. "Such-and-such worked in the Charter, and such-and-such did not." Whatever people believe at this point about the results of our "democratic experiment," when we post at HoF, we are no longer taking part in that experiment, and are affirmatively making a choice to take part in a system that began by repudiating its model, as best as I can tell (from presenting putative members with a "take-it-or-leave-it" set of rules at the time of joining, to creating a hidden forum for administrative discussions, to barring certain language and discussion topics that were allowed and encouraged at board77.) Despite all of us acceding to this system, however, we are of at least three different minds about it - there are those who find this system better, those who are indifferent, and those who find it worse than democracy but are nonetheless willing to put up with it for reasons of their own. I think there is no way to have a discussion that cites to our b77 experiences without delving deeply into the legitimacy and/or preferability of each model. That way lies drama and madness - even before we get to whatever residual feelings each of us may have about the events of October-December 2005 on b77.
If people think we can have a theoretical discussion on Internet governance, so much the better. However, I think Artie is correct to confine his "research" specifically on b77 to PMs (though I personally have no time or interest re: participating in a PM exchange with someone hoping to advance the "democracy movement" online.) And I think that if this discussion is going to revisit b77 history, I would prefer that it is terminated before it begins. Every time we have tried to revisit that topic on HoF, it has led to lengthy, angst-filled posts, hurt feelings, and weeks or months of progress lost with respect to everyone feeling comfortable here. Unfortunately, I am not sure that we as a group CAN have a discussion on Internet governance without revisiting b77 history - because it is so integral a part of most of our views on the subject.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
I don't like the idea of having a topic that is de facto forbidden for discussion simply because previous attempts at it haven't worked. Prior restraint and all that.
If people can't restrain themselves, THEN lock it.
I have had illuminating discussions in person and in private correspondence with many of you on this topic. I refuse to believe it can't be done, here, in a civil manner. The only question is whether people are willing.
If people can't restrain themselves, THEN lock it.
I have had illuminating discussions in person and in private correspondence with many of you on this topic. I refuse to believe it can't be done, here, in a civil manner. The only question is whether people are willing.
Well, this is based on B77 experience, but I think the implications are more general than that ...
I agree with Yov that our Charter effort was out of proportion to the needs of the board. All we really needed, in terms of defined form, was a system for rotating admins. (But of course it did not feel like that at the time or else we would not have put so much effort into creating more than that.)
What this suggests to me, in terms of broad models, is that the first decision that has to be made by a democratic internet community, is how much form they really need.
It is true that we did not approach the task this way. We assumed that we needed to cover every circumstance that has ever cropped up on any board to which we had ever belonged, and we worked forward from that assumption, dutifully covering everything.
B77 is functioning fine right now, and the only part of the Charter they routinely use is the system for rotating admins.
So I guess my recommendation to any new community would be very much like what Yov said. Don't create more stuff than you really need. Decide first what you really need.
There is a kind of dilemma in this, of course, in that it is harder to handle a problem when it is already upon you than it is if you have a mechanism established in advance. But in retrospect, I think I would say that this danger is probably outweighed by the danger of having something so extravagent that people feel burdened by it.
Jn
I agree with Yov that our Charter effort was out of proportion to the needs of the board. All we really needed, in terms of defined form, was a system for rotating admins. (But of course it did not feel like that at the time or else we would not have put so much effort into creating more than that.)
What this suggests to me, in terms of broad models, is that the first decision that has to be made by a democratic internet community, is how much form they really need.
It is true that we did not approach the task this way. We assumed that we needed to cover every circumstance that has ever cropped up on any board to which we had ever belonged, and we worked forward from that assumption, dutifully covering everything.
B77 is functioning fine right now, and the only part of the Charter they routinely use is the system for rotating admins.
So I guess my recommendation to any new community would be very much like what Yov said. Don't create more stuff than you really need. Decide first what you really need.
There is a kind of dilemma in this, of course, in that it is harder to handle a problem when it is already upon you than it is if you have a mechanism established in advance. But in retrospect, I think I would say that this danger is probably outweighed by the danger of having something so extravagent that people feel burdened by it.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I developed a distinct dislike of PM's after my tenure as a Ranger over on B77. That's why I didn't reply to yours, Artie. Whenever I see that PM message thingy show a new PM, I really dread opening it. The thought of a lengthy PM conversation is quite unpleasant.
Not that I have anything to say about the sucess or failure of the experiment anyway. It would only get everyone upset again. I'd rather hit a hornet's nest with a stick, it'd be less painful!
Not that I have anything to say about the sucess or failure of the experiment anyway. It would only get everyone upset again. I'd rather hit a hornet's nest with a stick, it'd be less painful!
It was all your fault, I assure you.Faramonster wrote:I read some posts here and tried to decide why the big blowup and exodus from B77 happened, and then I realized I have no idea why.
I always feel like we have trouble seeing eye to eye, so I'm glad to hear that.Jn wrote:I agree with Yov...
Jn wrote:B77 is functioning fine right now, and the only part of the Charter they routinely use is the system for rotating admins.
Don't even think that's being used...
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Personally, I do not understand why internet communities need rules at all. I think I am in favor of total anarchy, and think that the people governing the boards need to take care of, well, the technical stuff. The ability to delete spam is all that I would be frustrated to lose. Or rather, my "system" would involve a self-reinforcing culture.
Needless to say, no one has ever asked me to run a board.
But I am not involved in board77, so I guess my comments don't apply here. I have very little interest in discussing this topic, and I know it is quite personal to some others.
Edit: Cross-posted with Cerin. I don't have all that much to say, so it will not bother me if the thread is locked.
Needless to say, no one has ever asked me to run a board
.But I am not involved in board77, so I guess my comments don't apply here. I have very little interest in discussing this topic, and I know it is quite personal to some others.
Edit: Cross-posted with Cerin. I don't have all that much to say, so it will not bother me if the thread is locked.
Last edited by MithLuin on Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I don't know if B77 is the only democratic board in existence currently (although Yov's post suggests that it isn't currently so itself?) but I don't think it was the first one or only one if the 2003 dates on the votes on this board are accurate. Edited to add: I posted this link in case Artie was interested in another example for his study.
I think I agree with Axordil's first post on the general subject.
I'd honestly prefer not to see anything approaching discussion of B77 here, but have no issues with a discussion of non-specific theory, although I doubt I'd have much to say.
I think I agree with Axordil's first post on the general subject.
I'd honestly prefer not to see anything approaching discussion of B77 here, but have no issues with a discussion of non-specific theory, although I doubt I'd have much to say.
Last edited by Alys on Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It isn't right for the members here to try to push this thread over to b77 as I'm quite sure people don't want it there (I know I certainly don't. This whole discussion is coming about because of a contact Jnyusa has about governing a board and this is the board Jn governs). It seems to me that the people who want to discuss internet democracy are more here.
*goes back to lurking*
Because there will always be posters who act like jerks or people in power who get a god-like complex.MithLuin wrote:I do not understand why internet communities need rules at all
*goes back to lurking*
It seems to me that the people who want to discuss internet democracy are more here.
You're probably right. But it also seems that the people who want to not discuss it are here too.
b77ers are just, in general, indifferent to this stuff.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
