[governance] Trying to "fix" the list

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi all,

I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution 
with the issue of decision making capacity.


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.

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.

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.

My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few 
options for action.
One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this 
discussion elsewhere.
Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse.

The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit 
to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution:

"Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those 
relating to:
*No personal insults
*No spam"

The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of 
abuse and appropriate means of action against it.


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.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> The IGC charter gives IGC many clear organizational responsibilities, 
> that require both some amount of discipline and collective decision 
> making capacity, which we all realize often does not exist at present.
> 
> It is our responsibility to ensure that we evolve in the direction 
> whereby we can best fulfill our mandate. Unfortunately, we often seem to 
> be going in the opposite direction, and I am very concerned about it, 
> like many others who have repeatedly expressed similar concerns.
> 
> We already have a membership group and a non-member list subscribers 
> group. We can make use of this distinction wherever needed to ensure we 
> are able to properly do things that we are mandated to do.
> 
> I understand that the IGC mandate can be seen to have two aspects
> 
> (1) to be an open space for exchange of information and discussion on IG 
> issues, chiefly global IG issues
> 
> (2) to undertake public interest advocacy  in global IG spaces
> 
> The two aspects of IGC's mandate have different organizational 
> requirements. (1) above requires it to be an open space, least 
> encumbered by any rules, exclusions etc except the very basic ones which 
> are required to be enforced in any public place to allow a reasonable 
> discussion. The aspect (2) of the mandate however clearly requires more 
> specific organizational and outcome-achieving capacities. No one is 
> advocating IGC becoming a typical formal organization, and we indeed 
> have achieved very considerable advocacy outcomes  in the past. In this 
> sense IGC indeed is a very unique organization or group. And we need to 
> keep evolving on the same unique path.
> 
> I think it may be in order to have a members only e-list, something like 
> IGC-mmbers at lists.cpsr.org,  plus another general IGC discussion list 
> which can continue to be the same list as the present one. All 
> discussions should take place on the general IGC list. Attempts at 
> developing consensus should also first be attempted on the general list 
> - in any case the overall  discussion towards seeking consensus  should  
> take place  on the general list.
> 
> However, as and if required, issues requiring specific decisions should 
> move to the members list. Here, if needed, simple voting can be used to 
> decide issues. Issues that may need decisions include anything that can 
> be causing serious disruptive effect on the IGC (and you know what I are 
> taking about here).
> 
> In fact if a decision is put to the members list - whether it is a 
> substantive one, like when consensus on an advocacy issue is becoming 
> difficult, or that related to IGC maintenance and discipline - IGC 
> members are expected to feel more responsible to so something about it. 
> In the present situation where IGC space often looks so alien and 
> unowned by anyone, it becomes easy for members to abdicate responsibility.
> 
> What I propose and seek here has significant resonance with the acute 
> 'political' crisis we face globally as well locally across the world 
> today - societies and communities are losing means and, consequently, 
> motivation for collective decision making in areas where such decisions 
> are crucial to our survival. In IGC too we face such an existential 
> moment. And unlike the global crisis it is much easier for us involved 
> in this group to do our bit and make a change. We may also be, in the 
> process, taking a small step towards addressing the stated global crisis.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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