[ICANN-EU] MEMO requesting discussion: Structuring a large ML

["Constantine S. Chassapis" <cschassapis@acm.org>]

Dear all, Dear Thomas,

Motivated from Thomas Roessler thinking ...

Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: [ICANN-EU] self-organization / pressure group

> My point is that for just providing the European @large director
> with input and transparency, we don't need to set up a formal
> pressure group with all the problems and costs it implies.  For this
> purpose, an open mailing list with appropriate infrastructure is
> actually better suited.  Such a list could easily evolve out of this
> one; the infrastructure will remain available and can be improved
> even after the elections are over.  

I developed a memo (you know, the first step before an Internet-
Draft: I-D), that I enclose below that tries to answer 
some questions that appear all the time in our ML. I am
waiting your input with real interest, especially if we need to
self-organize in order to be ready for September Phase or for
the after-the-elections phase.
The essential theme is to have an ML with no hierarchy where
all the at large members can equally participate, and where results 
can be produced directly from the list! Enjoy!

---------------------------------------------------------------------


<MEMO>


SELF-ORGANIZATION AND READABILITY
OF A LARGE MESSAGE LIST

By Constantine Chassapis <cschassapis@acm.org>

Version 0.1 of August 19, 2000;
Submitted to icann-europe@fitug.de ML.


This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices
for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and
suggestions for improvements. 



A. INTRODUCTION

How one can participate in a message-list of possibly 100000
members, with no hierarchy, and at the same time don't loose
all meaning? In a list where everyone will be able to speak at
the root level and at the same time everyone must be able to
follow hundreds of threaded discussions and thousands of
messages PER DAY! Here follows an answer, based on 
member sense of respect and responsibility, which tries to 
establish "fair play" through very simple rules and simple 
technology. 

(Please, when you will study the pointing system that follows,
keep in mind that I have not done any study on the exact
points that must be added or subtracted per action. This needs
revision. If someone has experience with dynamic systems, please
comment; otherwise I should have to write a simulation program
to find out).


B. THE SCHEME

0. We use the classic e-mail-list (ML hereon), as our example.
Let us say that the ML has 100000 members and it receives, let's
say, 10000 new messages per day. Whether these messages are also
distributed to the members, or are just posted on a publicly
accessible web page, or both, it is not critical for this
discussion. The minimum requirement is that all messages are
posted on a specific place (and are linkable) and that all
threads are clearly perceptible. No subject- or region- grouping
is expected, no time-grouping either.

1. There must be sum-ups. Intelligent summaries. The person that
started a thread must make the summary when he/she realizes that
the discussion is over (if some days pass, for example, with no
related threaded message - an informative note should be privately
posted to all participants of a particular thread saying that the
thread is about to conclude). That person should be responsible
for an intelligent summary that will include all opinions
expressed. If he fails to write the SUM UP, then, after some
reasonable time, some other person should do it. Let's give a +2
to a person that will make the sum up and a -3 to a person that
fails to do so. Then the thread will be concluded. No threads
will be allowed to originate from the message denoted as [SUM UP].
Links to it from other messages will be ok. SUM UPs must contain
an INDEX of keywords and persons mentioned on all messages in 
the thread. Another document may set clearer specifications for
SUM Ups. Maybe a SUM UP must be reviewed by a 
COLLECTOR (see point 4 below) that will act as a referee, before 
it receives the [SUM UP] indication.

2. Threads within threads? No problem, each internal thread should
conclude before the parent thread concludes, and the upper 
SUM UP must comprehensibly contain all other SUM UPs and 
a full INDEX. Single message "thread"? No action has to be taken!

3. Can there be critiques to a SUM UP or parallel SUM UPs?
Of course. Critiques can start a new, independent, thread, and
link to the SUM UP. Parallel sum ups can be listed at the same
terminal level of a thread. The +2 points will be given to all
persons that perform SUM UPs. Ok, let's not allow SUM UPs of 
SUM Ups of the same thread.

4. It is rational that COLLECTORS must be operational; people
with, for example, adequate positive number on their account.
These people will have the right to post at the root level of the
ML messages denoted [COLLECTIONS] that will contain 
collections of links to interesting messages in their own view, with
critiques, or summaries. Everyone can also do that, simply,
collections by collectors will be marked [COLLECTIONS]. It will
be a kind of a marking of authority regarding the specific ML.

5. Each person posting a message will get on his/her account some
positive number, lets say +1, per message. Every newcomer to the
ML will start with, lets say, a +100.

6. Spamming, advertising (ok, some minimum advertising at the
bottom of a message might be ok), improper language should cost
something to the originator, lets say a -1 per message. Who will
decide that? What is heaven for one person can be hell for
another. Well, this is a request for comments and ideas. I don't
know. Maybe the easiest thing is that we all agree on few things,
like for example forbidden words, or level of advertising, and
then things can be mechanized through some dictionary of
forbidden words or phrases.

7. If a message starts a thread, or is linked in a collector's
COLLECTION, its originator receives an additional +2.

8. What happens if someone finds himself someday with a net -1
or a -100? Nothing. It is just difficult for him to become a
collector. Maybe if one ends with a -200 his/her right to post
messages must be taken (but he/she may still be able to collect
positive points by making SUM Ups, so that the right can be re-
gained by hard work!). What if everybody becomes a collector? 
Then, we must have a party! 
At what time somebody becomes a collector?
I don't know, lets say at +200. 
After the COLLECTOR status, what? 
I don't know? Is it important? The point is to make people get
involved! The essence of a message board is the content of the
messages! The present system tries to organize an ML that will
receive 10000 or more messages per day for the shake of reading,
or at least apprehending the essence of the content of the ML as
a reader of it. 

9. A COLLECTOR status may be lost, then regained. A 
COLLECTION never looses its status. Maybe here we can put a 
permanent COLLECTOR status, or something else, something 
honorary, if one reaches, let's say, +500.


C. ACCOUNTING AND PSYCHOLOGY

10. Everything up to now is immediately applicable to our ML at
icann-europe@fitug.de, except the pointing system. A simple
solution: Everyone makes his own summing, and posts this next to
his name whenever he concludes and posts a message. This demands
a lot of responsibility. Another solution? Modify a little the
mail-receptor program to display the points on the web site that
hosts the messages. If we use the first (easy) solution, maybe
each participator of the ML should have for a day or two the duty
of checking a random sample of other members for their
addition / subtraction capabilities. (If an error is found,
lets put a -1 for every decade that is wrong in the positive
sense, and just correct it if the sum erroneously is less than
the correct number). And this duty should circle around all
members.

11. Psychological remarks: An ML that follows this system on
top of existing technology adds some work to a person that has
a message to post, after he/she posts the message. This is fair
because this makes him/her think twice before posting a
message, but on the other hand this system can be very rewarding. 
I am certain, that in an ML of so many people, being a 
COLLECTOR  will please a lot, and the net effect will be 
easiness for all of us in following or recapitulating the discussions. 
Another thing is that the ensemble of COLLECTORs of a large ML 
and of a huge collection of messages, will be a kind of self-organized 
distillery of the collective intelligence of the ML.


D. POINT SYSTEM SUMMARY

I. Per member:

+100 at entry.
+1 per message posted.
+2 per SUM UP done.
-3 per SUM UP not done but required.
-1 per improper message.
+2 per message that starts a thread or is linked back in a
   collector's collection.
+2 per message that is linked back in a collector's 
   collection.

II. If member points get greater than +200 then COLLECTOR.

III. If member points get greater than +500 then PERMANENT 
     COLLECTOR. 

IV. If member points less than -200 then provisional denial of
    message posting capability.


E. TERMINOLOGY

MESSAGE: Usually the classical email in a mail-list. Other
forms may be envisaged too.

ML: message-list. A collection of people that exchange
messages on a daily basis and where all messages are made
public to the members of the ML.

THREAD: A list of time-ordered messages where each refers
to its previous in the ordered list. A thread may generate
sub-threads.

SUM-UP: a summary of the important points discussed in a 
thread. Concludes a thread.

ACCOUNT: Each participant of the message-list has a virtual
account where his "points" are added or subtracted. The net
number each moment reflects his degree of involvement in the
list, his knowledge of the messages exchanged, his eagerness
to participate.

COLLECTIONS: messages that contain intelligent collections of
links to other interesting messages possibly incorporating a
critique, a summary, an index, external http or other links,
etc.

INDEX: part of a message that discusses other messages where
keywords and persons are indexed and the links of the index
points to the original messages (possibly also stating, first
half, second half of the message to ease the reader finding
his/her way through).

</MEMO>