[atlarge-discuss] Impersonal processes Re: [Fwd: [atlarge-discuss] WHAT MOSTMEMBERS WANT]

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 17:52 +1200 2003/04/14, Joop Teernstra wrote in reply to me:
>>I sometimes wonder whether people in this group will ever
>>"get it" that what I've been advocating all along is some
>>form of process whereby possible solutions are discussed,
>>tested, compared, and eventually voted upon by the group
>>rather than identify ideas with particular individuals
>>and judge them according to whether or not one likes the
>>person they came from.
>
>Do you mean a group in which we all call ourselves "anonymous" ?
>
>How long do you think it will take before we are again individualized?

Obviously not! but although each individual has his or her own
identity and ideas, it is not only possible but desirable to
discuss and compare ideas on *their own* merits and lacks
rather than simply accept or reject them based on who made
the suggestion and what one thinks of him or her as a person.

Mussolini "made the trains run on time" but that doesn't
discredit the idea that a train schedule should be accurate!
And it certainly doesn't mean everyone who favours accurate
train schedules is Mussolini.

In practice, every resolution or bill carries the names of
its proposer and seconder BUT it is also phrased in impersonal
terms:
    RESOLVED THAT whereas [blahblahblah]
                  such-and-such a measure should be taken.
Then people debate
- whether all the whereases are true or not
- whether the proposed measure is necessary or a bad idea
- whether something needs rewording or another clause
  should be added...
and, finally, once all the pros and cons are in the open,
a vote is held and the resolution passes or dies.

Here in this group, we can see the best example of this kind
of process in the purely technical discussions where, whatever
the individuals or their ideologies, the critique is of the
technical solution proposed, not who proposed it or what
somebody infers their ideological reasons might be. With
several people willing to suggest improvements to a program
and work on any problems, and without the ad hominem arguments,
one can actually end up with a workable voting mechanism which
the membership might well accept when they see it is as fair
and as practical as we can make it.

That's the same democratic modus operandi I've been talking
about all along. Discussion is open; anyone can critique a
proposal and suggest changes; if the changes seem like
improvements, others will agree to them. Meanwhile, the
discussion is structured --insofar as there is an agreement
to discuss the subject all the way to a conclusion and
without bringing personalities into the debate-- and will
eventually lead to a conclusion which will be adopted or
rejected based on whether that conclusion seems right to
the majority.

>Judging and especially trusting idea's by their origin is so human
>(and
>generally sensible) that I am astonished that you  actually believe
>that
>such prejudice can be overcome.

I'm not saying that human prejudices can necessarily be overcome
here -- they certainly aren't in any democratic country I know.
But the whole purpose of "Rules of Order" is to ensure that
formal discussion (as opposed to kibbitzing or campaigning)
focuses on the issues rather than mutual insults.

>Also, how can you avoid people (like yourself) trying to score
>political
>points in an environment where people are "getting to know" other
>people in
>order to see if they can trust and elect them for office?

I think many of us, including myself, have yielded to the
temptation to respond individually to individual comments.
This mailing list has not been accustomed to the kind of
formal discipline that leads to efficient debate and
decision-making ... which I think is why we've achieved
so little to date. "Anything goes" mailing lists are fine
for recreational purposes or adversarial debate, but the only
lists I know (and I know lots of them) which actually exist
for a purpose and eventually fulfil that purpose are the
ones where all parties agree to focus on the tasks at hand
rather than trying to score one another off or gain power.

Since you've suggested otherwise above, let me repeat what
I have said many times. It is not, and never has been, my
desire to run for a position on the Interim Panel. It *is*
my desire to see this group make the transition from
infighting and inaction to democratic processes and
appropriate action -- the details of both of which must
ultimately decided by the membership as a whole, not just a
few of the loudest voices.

Online, we "get to know" one another slowly through what
we write and what positions we espouse. My position has
always been that if we exist to convince ICANN et al. that
the Internet needs open, transparent and democratic
governance which includes all individual Internet users,
then we must ourselves *demonstrate* the openness,
transparency, democracy and inclusiveness we want are
not only possible but can actually work in practice.

I've got my personal "hobby-horses" -- maximum
accessibility and inclusiveness, the need for an
agreed-upon agenda and timetable and rules to ensure
progress towards a mutually-agreed-upon goal -- but I am
certainly not alone in my desire for progress and democracy,
and I certainly am willing to go along with any reasonable
proposal accepted by a majority of the membership.

For what it's worth, I'm still here mainly because this group
needs periodic reminders that a democratic organization
*can't* flourish in a climate where the only decisions made
are made by particular individuals without obtaining the
consent of the others before proceeding. I believe that,
if this group is to become the organization its members
seem to want it to be, we must learn to co-operate with
one another much more --work and decide together with others,
set aside purely personal differences when trying to solve
impersonal problems, make efforts to include the "silent
majority" rather than assume their silence disenfranchises
them, etc.

>>The latter approach has been tried for nearly a year and
>>the results have not been stellar. Can't we finally try
>>the other, which is normal elsewhere and seems to allow
>>for democratic decision-making?
>
>O.K. One can always try.
>What "some form of process" do you propose?

For a start, I think the group needs to set some collective
ground-rules.

Bruce posted a list of questions for inclusion
with the Call for Nominations (some of them from the recent
Poll) which would help define some of these things for us:
number, quorum, and role of the Interim Panel; how the
Web site should be run; what other elective positions should
there be; how the group should be represented to external
bodies, etc., etc. (I'll have some suggestions about these
questions later in a separate message.)

Joanna had some good ideas during her tenure as our Panel
Chair, amongst which were:
- to keep discussions organized and on-track by
numbering and accurately labelling threads (it's just too
chaotic when there are dozens of messages covering various
topics but all have the same subject line)
- to try to get the Panel members working together as a unit
Others have tried too, no doubt, but it hasn't been working
lately and we need it to since no co-operation within the
Panel means no collective resolutions which can be put to
a membership vote and no common agenda we can all work on.
That list isn't exhaustive by any means but those two items
seem to me to be both crucial and non-controversial.

Something that may be controversial (but in my opinion
shouldn't be) is the duty of the Panel Chair to exercise
chairmanship both within the Panel and here in these
discussions. Chairmanship is *not* unilateral decision-
making; it is exerting moral authority to keep order in
debate and to call for a motion to a) put the question or
b) postpone a decision and move to the next item on the
agenda, so that endless debate of one issue doesn't lead
to neglect of all the others.

Mailing lists which have a real topic usually also have
some rules for their subscribers: some forbid off-topic
postings while others enforce the use of tags to let
people know which messages they might want to read. I
don't see any harm in applying something like that here;
it would certainly help me if I could distinguish
between "CHAT" postings, "ELECTORAL", "WEB SITE", "ICANN"
"BYLAWS", etc. whether we used them with numerical tags or
not. A "Take flame wars off-list" rule might be nice but
I'd settle for a "FLAME" tag if people feel the need for
ad hominem arguments in public to prove they're not being
censored.

Assuming (as I do) that we do not have a Board of Directors
and may not want one which makes top-down decisions for us,
I'd like to see the Interim Panel's mandate include
specifics like
" - formulating a procedure whereby its resolutions will
    be ratified by the membership as required, and one by
    which members can bring forward a membership resolution
    to be voted upon by the membership".
There is no reason why the Constitution/Bylaws process
can't be started in the open and in a way which allows
us to approve interim bylaws as needed. By this means,
we'd have an opportunity to debate, vote on and test
individual bylaws before we're faced with having to
say a straight "yes" or "no" to a long and complex
document.

To be frank, I think one thing we need to look at right now
is some groundrules for candidates in the upcoming election.
We have learned by experience that simply posting a
statement from each candidate is not enough to ensure that
they will be good, responsible Panel members. If it's made
clear from the onset that being a Panelist means more
responsibility than personal power or status, and that not
fulfilling one's duties means prompt replacement, maybe
candidates will take their role more seriously. If being
a candidate means having to respond to voters' questions
and live up to one's promises as well as one's mandate,
maybe this group will really become an effective
organization in the near future.

But I think if we want that to happen, we need to spell things
out clearly rather than assume that the most popular candidates
will automatically do what is best for the group or that
"just do it" without agreed-upon definitions of "it" will
lead to consensus. We've tried that repeatedly and it's
left us with fragmentation and ineffectiveness. On the other
hand, democracies work by ensuring that the system as a whole
will work whoever happens to be elected because roles are
not defined by personalities but by collective needs.

I hope this clarifies what I've been talking about. Agree
or disagree as you see fit, and eventually the majority
will decide.

Regards,

Judyth




##########################################################
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