[governance] communication methods

[Avri Doria]

was: Re: [governance] outreach

Hi Danny,

I think this message was full of good stuff.

I think I agree, to some extent, about the utility of an email list.   
For a single thread or three it can work fine. but as more and more  
themes add up and more people get involved, some people's messages,  
though they contain really good thoughts will often be left behind  
while people work to keep up with the list.  and yes, there may be a  
tendency for people to put more time into processing the email from  
the people they know the best.  and then people will feel that they  
are being ignored - and they will be, through the fault may be the  
medium and not the caucus.

I like the idea of wikis and think their use should be explored,  
though i admit i have never used one in the way you suggested.  even  
when working with others on a plone, i found that it only sort of  
worked.  Some questions I have are:

-you mentioned having editors per theme: how does an editor avoid  
becoming a control/gate on where a theme can go?

-and like wise how does a theme reach a conclusion that can move  
beyond those contributing to the theme?

-is there a way to deal with multiple languages effectively?

-is there a way to work with one when you only have intermittent  
access or expensive access.  one of the advantages of email is the  
least common denominator aspect - especially if people use text  
messages, it is relatively easy to receive and send.  what service  
can be provided for the person who does not have reliable access that  
would allow them to sit for as much time as needed to read and edit a  
wiki page?
--- can you perhaps subscribe to a theme on a wiki and get email  
every time there is a change and send email to the wiki in response?

- how is the community informed of new topics and of status on themes  
if they cannot gain access to a wiki?  or don't want to check it  
daily to see if there is a new topic under discussion.


As for the mailing list, i do not believe we should give up on it.  I  
think it is a good place for themes to get
born.

some comments inline below.

thanks
a.

On 26 apr 2006, at 14.30, Danny Butt wrote:
>

> Avri, I was just writing yesterday that I believe that the morphing
> of the IETF-style culture of consensus from the technical to the
> political (not that hard distinctions can be drawn, but you know what
> I mean) is responsible for the most pressing governance problems
> faced by the Internet. So I just wanted to acknowledge, given your
> extensive background in that culture, your willingness to put those
> methods on the table for discussion without pre-judgement. It's rare
> that any of us can do that with our habitual methods and I really
> appreciate it.
>

Well i certainly do not believe that the things that work for one set  
of circumstances will necessarily work in other circumstances.  I  
tend to look at all of the mechanisms as just components of a tool  
kit and different tools are necessary for different environments and  
tasks.  i think one of the challenges now is to find the tools that  
match and enable the desired nature/behavior of the IGC.


> Here's what I think I know about mailing lists and organisation:
>
> * A mailing list is narrow bandwidth for productive conversation.
> Even though it is slightly asynchronous, it is time-based and can
> only hold a couple of productive conversations at once (sometimes,
> not even that ;). I agree with Vittorio's comment that multivocality
> is desirable. The pressure needs to be taken off this list as the
> means by which issue contributions to the IGC take place. The list is
> very important for all the cross-cutting organisational issues like
> timelines, opportunities, etc.

I tend to agree.  but we don't have a proven workable substitute  
yet.  But it is worth looking for one.

>
> * Specialisation is required given the vast range of topics,
> expertise and orientations that could be considered "civil society".
> Having each of us process and agree to every statement is inefficient
> and doesn't scale. And forced into the narrow bandwidth of the
> mailing list, disagreements and contests over framing crowd out the
> content (e.g. "right to development"). The specialisation should be
> among expertise/interest rather than people - I don't know how formal
> it needs to be to begin. But I think a coordinator-editor role on
> each of various issues could be useful as a loose structure.

I am not sure how much structure we need and i think that themes  
should be able to come into existence and blink out of existence  
easily and without a lot of process.

in terms of specialization, while it may be good for specialists to  
focus on their specialties, a lot of us are generalists and i think  
that we need to be careful not to partition things to the extent that  
the generalist can not longer participate.  another problem with  
stratification into specialties is that we can lose track of the  
overall picture and miss the similarities that exist between the  
seemingly different themes.

so yes, the ability to focus is a good thing, but i would worry about  
to much exclusionary specialization.

>
> * Consensus can work when the scope is clear and there is broad
> agreement on what success might look like. That is true for some
> technical protocols, but it is almost never true for political
> issues. Again, given the scope of CS, I think we must have a process
> that can accept tension, conflict, and mutually incompatible
> positions. These should be resolved only when they are show-stoppers,
> rather than as part of the process of developing positions.

I would argue that it may not even be true for some protocols.  but  
that is a discussion for another time and place.  the balance i think  
we have to find is how we can put out a statement as a caucus without  
needing consensus.  i think there is strength in the united statement  
and we need to find a way to arrive at such statement on a variety of  
themes without a great deal of community angst.

>
> * From my POV, the Wiki is the most promising issue-development
> platform I've used in that respect, because you can include a range
> of positions without necessarily having a direct discussion about it.
> The tendency in reading email messages is to treat text as an
> utterance, and to hold a person accountable to it. Email lists are
> intimidating to many. There will be useful contributions to shared
> texts that would be made by people who for whatever reason don't
> share our desire to say "Here is what I think".

Althoygh I have questions about how it would work, I am intrigued at  
the possibility.

a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance