RE: [atlarge-discuss] top down or bottom up?

[espresso@e-scape.net]

Thanks, Bruce. I'm nonetheless hoping this group will eventually
realize that agreeing to discuss agenda points systematically
would be one way to speed up our progress without switching
into top-down mode.

It's not easy to apply a "meeting by mail" model to what we've
been doing thus far. It seems we don't even have enough self-
discpline to change a subject line when the discussion veers
in another direction.

On other lists, subscribers have agreed to a set of basic rules
which the list-owner reposts every now and then when people seem to
have forgotten. In my opinion, this list might do well to look at
that sort of approach.

Even things as simple as "no HTML" and "trim all but the essentials
from previous messages quoted" can be very helpful, especially for
those of us who don't have unlimited time or hard disk space. On
large lists dealing with many topics, a system of mandatory
subject tags can be a great help.

If we could actually set out a list of specific items that need
to be discussed and then framed as potential resolutions or clauses
for our constitution, then made a point of labelling our responses
appropriately, it would be much easier for a Panel member to
compile the suggestions into one message when a suitable period
had elapsed and to make sure that this summary was reposted
when the same point came up again. It would also make life a lot
easier for those of us who simply can't keep everyone's comments
about everything straight enough to ensure that a line of
thought gets pursued until we reach some kind of interim
conclusion that could be voted upon eventually.

I'm not convinced one can infer a consensus of 1000+ members from
the postings of two or three dozen people. If that's what we are
looking for, we might do better by presenting the full membership
with a list of 3-5 options per item and asking them to rank them by
how closely they correspond to the individual's own opinions. In a
face-to-face setting, one can ask for a quick show of hands but
we can't so, unless we ourselves frame resolutions to be voted
upon by the members, we need some means of determining whether
silence means assent, disagreement, indifference or departure.





At 17:42 -0800 2003/01/17, Bruce Young wrote:
>Judyth's analysis is dead on here.  And I share her frustration over
>the
>slow pace of progress.  But the very fact that we *aren't* a top-down
>driven
>organization imposes a far greater coordinating burden on us that we're
>still learning to master. It's easy for a "star chamber" group to
>despense
>policy.  It's *much* harder when those policies need to reflect the
>concencensus of over 1000 users!


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