|
1091. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:27:15 AM CalGal
If I understand what happened, the only issue on the table is Irv's changes to RoE wording.
Hardly. I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes. Irv thinks it is clear, but I cannot find a post, much less several, that back up his explication. I can find several referring to alternative rules. I'm not opposed to Irv's summary, but I'd like to see some evidence that his version, rather than others, is the model. Plus, as I asked, I would like to see elaboration of the ambiguity in his summary, as i asked before.
We've had a discussion about transparency. If we adopt the "silence=assent" model, then the overwhelming majority are in favor, and it should be adopted. Of course, I don't accept that model, so I'm not seriously proposing this. However, I don't agree that the issue is closed.
There is interest in a FAQ.
There's thee issues OTTOMH. I bet I could find more (including thread host duties and thread host selection criteria, if I looked.) 1092. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:28:06 AM Yes, silence = assent for all proposals, IMO. If we posted an announcement in every thread that we were about to move towards a transparent forum unless we heard otherwise, silence would equate to acceptance.
No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency. Really (and as a separate issue), anyone who is for transparency and doesn't use their real name now doesn't warrant much consideration. Put up or shut up, if you think it's so important.
The thread commenced on the 18th, but there was a good week of discussion before that in both Censorship and New Features and Suggestions. Alistair deleted the Censorship thread, and we continued discussion in Features--much of that was deleted as well. Nonetheless, everyone was made aware that the thread existed, and anyone who wanted to could post on the issue.
I have answered the bit about "everyone" already.
1093. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:32:52 AM BTW, I don't think the silence=assent is a priori wrong. If a group wants to affirmatively adopt it as a rule, it can work. Some committees work this way. In some rare occasions (person and SO) it can be a tacit agreement, but this usually requires people who are very close. The second doesn't apply here—the first did't happen.
Oh, and as A-5 points out, political spinmeisters will make this claim. But that doesn't make it so. 1094. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:34:21 AM CalGal
Yes, silence = assent for all proposals, IMO. If we posted an announcement in every thread that we were about to move towards a transparent forum unless we heard otherwise, silence would equate to acceptance.
Good crosspost. I agree if we did that. We didn't. 1095. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:34:33 AM There is interest in a FAQ.
I wrote a FAQ, and posted it in New Features and Suggestions a while ago, as well as in this thread. I seem to recall you saying that you'd read it and didn't like it but wouldn't post why.
I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes.
You may have identified it, but I've seen no indication that it's moved past that point. As I said to Angel, go get a movement going. Or put a proposal on the table and get a discussion going. I was only referencing discussions that had moved to a point for action.
FWIW, I agree with Irv--the people who are interested will post here. A good percentage of members will read up and post once or twice if they are specifically invited to--which we should always do (and have, despite your impression to the contrary). Requiring that people vote, or forcing them to be subject to these discussions, will not be popular.
1096. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:37:02 AM CalGal
No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency.
Well, we had a book thread on the subject. I started with a strong preference for privacy rules, but Jay, and the book he suggested made a strong case for tranparency. Over time, I became convinced that it was more workable than I orginally thought. I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads. 1097. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:39:20 AM Good crosspost. I agree if we did that. We didn't.
We also didn't push for a move to transparency. We did indeed make people aware that the RoE was up for discussion. Anyone who was interested knew where the discussion was.
In fact, there was very little change to the RoE--none of the specific rules were changed. The definition of public vs. private was added, as well as a more open definition of abuse and threats. So it's not like there was a huge change--which is entirely different from a proposal to move to transparency. But nonetheless, anyone who wanted to protest or push for a change could have done so. 1098. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:39:23 AM CalGal
You may have identified it, but I've seen no indication that it's moved past that point. As I said to Angel, go get a movement going.
I'm trying. That why I spend hours reading the whole damn history to see what had happened in the past, wrote a response to Irv, and objected to your characterization that the issue wasn't open. 1099. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:40:15 AM I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads.
So what? There is a big difference between your own desire for transparency and mandating it as a forum policy. 1100. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:48:24 AM CalGal
Really (and as a separate issue), anyone who is for transparency and doesn't use their real name now doesn't warrant much consideration. Put up or shut up, if you think it's so important.
This is total bullshit. It's the same bullshit put forth by those who critize campaign finance critics for taking contributions. It's the same bullshit that critics of libertarians use when they point out that libertarians use certain services that they object to.
If you read the transparency book, you will see that the proposed world works when transparency is fully implemented. To use a common example, should women be opposed to transparency if they are being stalked? A short answer is that transparency will help then, if fully implemented. But a partial implementation, where the stalker can locate the woman, but can hide himself, is obviously the worst of all worlds.
Someone suggested that transparency can become the standard incrementally, by each individual adopting it. I disagree (but I'm open to alternative arguments.) In a fully transparent Mote, Cazart would be reticent to harass me, because I would know where s/he lives. If I post my name and address, but Cazart does not, the information asymmetry may work to my detriment. 1101. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:50:57 AM CalGal
me I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads.
you So what? There is a big difference between your own desire for transparency and mandating it as a forum policy.
Christ, please pay attention. I said I thought you would know of my position. You said you didn't. I explained why I thought you might have known. That's the "so what". 1102. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:53:32 AM CalGal
We also didn't push for a move to transparency.
No kidding. Who claimed we did?
We did indeed make people aware that the RoE was up for discussion. Anyone who was interested knew where the discussion was.
This time. Not in September. And I don't think a single announcement this time stated that silence would be considered assent. Please refer me to it, if I missed it. 1103. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 1:01:48 AM God, this gives me a headache.
Dusty:
I'm not opposed to Irv's summary, but I'd like to see some evidence that his version, rather than others, is the model. Plus, as I asked, I would like to see elaboration of the ambiguity in his summary, as i asked before.
What ambiguity? The method we use has been mentioned enough in various threads, and it will be in the FAQ. Someone brings up a topic or makes a proposal, we discuss it (or ignore it), and wabbit makes a decision. That's the method.
And silence does NOT mean assent. Otherwise we would have adopted both A5 and Seguine's proposals. Silence can mean many things: disinterest, ignorance, disapproval, assent, etc.
CalGal:
I agree with getting more specific about what thread hosts can do in the FAQ.
In fact, there was very little change to the RoE--none of the specific rules were changed. The definition of public vs. private was added, as well as a more open definition of abuse and threats.
I didn't touch the definitions of abuse or threats, so how could they be more open? 1104. dusty - 2/27/2000 1:19:39 AM IrvingSnodgrass
What ambiguity?
You said: The Moderator then makes a decision based upon that consensus.
This could be interpreted as saying that the Moderator must make a decision consistent with the consensus. Otherwise, what is the point of the last four words? I propose a period after decision.
The method we use has been mentioned enough in various threads, and it will be in the FAQ.
You keep saying this, but I read the 1000+ posts in this thread, and I did't see it. I'm not asking for someone to find a post to contradict me. If we put it in the FAQ then it will be clear. 1105. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:22:00 AM Irv,
No, I wasn't referring to your draft at all! I was referring to the original discussion, back in September, when the RoE was changed in the way described.
I'm sorry. This gives me a headache, too, and I'm not clear even when migraine free.
And silence does NOT mean assent.
As I thought I made clear, I was referring to what occurs once we have informed people that a change is on the table, and what will happen when a consensus is reached. In other words, you give people the knowledge that a discussion is taking place, you give them the information that action might occur at the end of the discussion. At that point, if people don't become involved, then IMO they are accepting the decision that is made.
This is actually why I encourage people like Angel and Dusty to get people involved in their proposals--because unless there is a big push for change, we are more likely to maintain the status quo. But if lots of people chime in with support, it suggests that there is a reason to consider change.
1106. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 1:41:05 AM OK, Dusty. You can change that sentence to read "The Moderator then makes a decision taking that consensus into consideration" on your copy. But be careful to get the white-out on the right place on your screen.
CalGal:
No problem. I'm still a novice at interpreting CalGalese. 1107. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:58:58 AM This time. Not in September. And I don't think a single announcement this time stated that silence would be considered assent. Please refer me to it, if I missed it.
The first mention of a Policy thread was 1017, in New Features and Suggestions, made by Pelle. Wabbit then created it and directed people there at post 1100.
At that time, there was a Censorship thread that had just been deleted, and a chunk of posts in Suggestions had been deleted as well. (I can't remember where right now, and didn't feel like looking back). Anyone who wondered what happened to the discussion could have read in New Features what happened. If you are arguing that someone wondered, didn't ask, and was then deprived of their right to participate, I'm just going to reserve the right to be skeptical.
BTW, the discussion went on for two or three days in Suggestions, five or six days in Censorship, and then five days in Policies. I grant you, there was a bunch of wastage there. But at the time, everyone was very clear on what issues were being discussed, and anyone who wanted to could have easily found out where the discussion was. 1108. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:09:44 AM CG to A-5: "I support your right to request changes. But I do wish you wouldn't pretend there was some conspiracy."
The only people I recall offhand who have mentioned conspiracies are you and ChristinO. Others of us have said simply that the RoE was written and agreed upon without adequate notice to all, without truly representative input, in a politically charged atmosphere. The people who spoke up quickest and loudest, and the people who did the actual writing of the RoE, are those whose views were taken to represent a consensus. It should now be clear that there is some dissatisfaction with that "consensus".
"I am just making an observation, since I am responsible for UI and content."
In the interests of transparency (by which I mean transparency of rules and governance--I am not challenging your desire for anonymity in this instance), just what does it mean that you are "responsible for...content"?? Is not Wabbit, really, the one who is responsible for content?
"I can change the wording to use Irv's more formal approach, and I can put that together to see if that works for anyone interested in reviewing it."
Like Irv, I am not an expert in CalGalese, but if this means you are offering to put his change proposal up just as it is (or with changes proposed by people other than yourself and agreed to by Irv) so that it may be reviewed by Mote membership, then I formally request that you do so. If what you mean is that, because you are responsible for "content", you will rewrite it before offering it to the membership, then I strenuously object.
1109. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 2:14:47 AM Seguine:
I'm possibly a little better at CalGalese, and I believe she was referring to the FAQ, which is our next project around here.
In fact, I hope we can get past the RoE and move on to the FAQ, which will require more than a little discussion, unless I miss my guess. Fortunately, CalGal has given us a well-organized starting point, though I don't have the reference number for the post. 1110. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 2:24:23 AM The FAQ is linked from Message # 864.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
