[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] FYI: Anonymity, identity and authority

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 19:43, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >Perhaps this will help to explain why I respectfully
> >disagree with my fellow-Canadian, Sotiris, who seems
> >to believe only those willing to pay $100 to have their
> >identity notarized should be eligible to join a group
> >protesting the lack of democracy and openness within
> >
> Poppycock!   I stated no such thing.  

Then, I think there was a misunderstanding about what you meant in these


It comes down to finessing terminology, I guess. Danny Younger
participates, though he isn't a member. Most members don't participate.
Then you have to wonder whether all members should vote or not, what
exactly it is that membership gets you above and beyond your status as
an At-Largean, etc.

I. At-Largean
   A. Participant
   B. Member
   C. Participating Member

Clearly, the benefits of the policies we pursue should cascade from [I].
Additionally, I think any [I] should be able to subscribe to the list or
web forum. Only [B] and [C] should be able to vote. [B] and [C] should
be verified, but I think we should hold off on implementing verification
until after the current election. So, [A] just seems to be a list or
forum member.

In deference to our colleagues in less open countries, perhaps a special
secret verification option could be researched?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part