Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options

[espresso@e-scape.net]

>Jeff Williams wrote:
>>   I am in agreement with Judyth's comments/remarks below.  I am
>> also puzzled that Judyth on the one hand supports publicly
>> CENSORSHIP, yet on the other says that members are members
>> and have a right to vote and that we have a duty to notify the
>>members
>> of upcoming votes/polls.  To me these two positions are juxtaposed,
>> and therefore inconsistent.  As such, I again state clearly and
>>without
>> reservation that I do not support Judyth as a watchdog for any
>> election unless or until a recant of the CENSORSHIP position
>> from Judyth is made publicaly.
>>
>>   I humbely and kindly await such a  recant...

Dear all,

I cannot recant what I never said in the first place.

I have never supported censorship -- just self-restraint
by each member and, where one chooses not to exercise it
and interferes with the good of the organization, a process
whereby the organization's credibility can be protected
while that member can be taught better manners.

Eric <eric@hi-tek.com> wrote:
>Censorship is wrong, self filtering is good for the individuals.
>No watchdog should be able or even in favor of censorship.

and I agree completely, whether Jeff believes me or not.

In fact, I have been quite determined to point out that NO
individual within this group should be in a position to
censor another or to control the flow of information between
the organization and its members and vice versa. Where
calls for self-restraint and discretion fail, there must be
a mechanism by which the collective good of the organization
is safeguarded and that process should be applied impartially
by the elected directors of the organization sitting as a
Panel or Board, after a majority vote on the appropriate
action for the case.

This is one of my major issues with the notion that Joop
should not only administer votes via the Polling Booth but
also decide on the timing, content and distribution of
information to the membership. Democracies work best when
there is a separation of powers and a process for collective
decision-making. They don't work at all when any individual
can act as prosecutor, judge and jury.

The other major issue for me (although secondary to the above)
is that this organization will achieve little or nothing if
its public relations -- consisting primarily of its Web site
and mailing lists -- are marred by ad hominem attacks,
self-aggrandizing at the expense of others, incoherent
demands, inappropriate language, "bot" postings, etc. A
recreational newsgroup can carry on despite these things
but they are no help in building a democracy or inviting
others to join it.

To a lesser extent than those things, I think badly-worded or
unapproved poll questions and unathorized communications sent
to members are also a problem. Joop, I'm sorry if this hurts
your feelings but, though your English is good for a non-native
speaker, I don't think it's good enough to be used unedited and
I think it does the group harm when you do something that seems
like a good idea to you but then draws objections from other
members that you've violated their privacy or made decisions
without consulting others in advance. There **really** need to
be rules about these things, especially since you're by no
means the only member to have committed such offenses. Our
best protection from such mistakes is a process for collective
consideration and prior approval of the materials by which the
group represents itself to the public.

If somebody on this list were posting spam here (as somebody is
already doing with the WG-Web list), I do not believe it constitutes
advocacy of censorship to want the spam deleted from the list's
public archives. Personally, I would count the recurrent postings
of the "who is Jeff Williams" stuff and any other messages whose
sole intent is to damage the reputation of another member as
deserving of deletion, too, but I wouldn't want any one person
to be making that decision and I would want there to be some
clear and explicit criteria to guide the Panel or Board on
what kinds of messages should be filtered out in advance -- e.g.,
computer viruses, promotions for pornography sites and such -- or
deleted from the archives if they manage to get past the
spam-and-virus filter.

If it's "censorship" to want to keep the list clean, virus-free,
respectful of individual rights and suitable to its purpose, then
your definition is a lot broader than mine. Ultimately, it's up
to the group to make a collective decision about that sort of
thing, and I'll abide by its decision.

Regards,

Judyth

P.S. Jeff Williams responded to Stephen Waters on the subject of
filibusters:
>  Interesting tact.  Unfortunately it is incorrectly applied.  A
>Filibuster is quite opposite of your attributation Stephen.
>In fact a filibuster is a celebration of speech in contention
>to a particular position held by a potential opposition.

Obviously this point is debatable. The classic filibuster is
a tactic by which the opposition party stalls a vote by
deliberately using their right of free speech to block the
exercise of the right of speech or vote on the part of others.
For those of us in parliamentary democracies or other non-
American forms of government, there is no "right to filibuster".
When a speaker diverges too far from the subject on the
agenda, he or she is called to order.

During the debate on a measure, the elected representatives
are normally given the opportunity to speak **to the matter
at hand** regardless of which party they belong to; however,
if somebody decides to read the telephone book or declaim for
hours on some other subject, the Speaker rules that person
out of order and lets somebody else take the floor to have his
or her say on the subject of the debate. Eventually, whether
everyone is willing to let the vote take place or not,
somebody calls for a vote and when the majority agrees, the
issue is voted upon.

That one person should tie up the work of an entire
government with an hours-long "celebration of speech" so as
to prevent his fellow-members from exercising their franchise
is not unique to the U.S. Congress but it's not a practice
favoured by most democracies and I certainly don't wamt to
see it practiced within this group.


P.P.S. What the heck have you got against Jan, Jeff? I can
understand why you'd loathe me but J.S. has been a model of
discretion, tact and good sense...

My two cents Canadian,

J.M.


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de