<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do
not support posting limits because the real problem is not the number of posts
per person but the quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., if Parminder and
Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind seeing 10 each from
both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – say, 5 per day –
would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of time, to waste
our time and generate reactions from others. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Rui Correia
[mailto:correia.rui@gmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49
AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> governance@lists.cpsr.org;
Jeanette Hofmann<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] Trying
to "fix" the list</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dear All<br>
<br>
I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that
will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every
single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota
gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. <br>
<br>
Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date
announcements etc by list administrators.<br>
<br>
And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time
limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one
question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred
words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we
allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account
that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions.<br>
<br>
And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I
agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point
actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/
amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing.
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Rui<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette@wzb.eu><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Hi all,<br>
<br>
I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the
issue of decision making capacity.<br>
<br>
<br>
The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates
contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership
status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the
general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few
months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion
to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse.<br>
<br>
The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to
protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad
hominem attacks.<br>
<br>
After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last
10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is
so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls.<br>
<br>
My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options
for action.<br>
One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion
elsewhere.<br>
Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse.<br>
<br>
The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take
into account other forms of of discourse pollution:<br>
<br>
"Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those
relating to:<br>
*No personal insults<br>
*No spam"<br>
<br>
The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse
and appropriate means of action against it.<br>
<br>
<br>
There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators
to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help
restoring this discussion space.<br>
<font color="#888888"><span style='color:#888888'><br>
jeanette</span></font><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
Rui Correia<br>
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant<br>
2 Cutten St<br>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Horison <br>
Roodepoort-Johannesburg</st1:City>, <br>
<st1:country-region w:st="on">South Africa</st1:country-region></st1:place><br>
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336<br>
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838<br>
_______________<br>
áâãçéêíóôõúç<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>