[governance] Trying to "fix" the list

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

I agree with Avri's suggestion  - working group lists can take a lot of the
back and forth traffic off the main list and allow for more focused
discussion on getting something done.  But that won't do anything about
troll activity, though... and I'd be against giving up the list's openness
and transparency and democracy just to get rid of some people that others
find annoying - our main principles need to be upheld, despite any troll
issues.

Jacqueline A. Morris
jam at jacquelinemorris.com
http://www.jacquelinemorris.com
http://www.google.com/profiles/jacqueline.morris.


-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:17 AM
To: Governance/IGC List
Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list

Hi,

It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list.   
Especially given the number of well respected people who are  
participants on the list and not 'members'.

I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from  
transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited  
from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of  
outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and  
then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner  
if wished).

If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller  
side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a  
statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others,  
but with open archives.

a.

On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote:

> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to  
> later be voted upon and approved by the list?
>
> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related  
> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance  
> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members  
> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up.
>
> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if  
> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be  
> one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require  
> approval, vote or consensus.
>
> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to  
> the charter.
>
> Is this practical, appropriate, legal?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we  
> should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not  
> think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would  
> be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I  
> thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o)
>
> gp
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance