[governance] Trying to "fix" the list

Fri Aug 14 20:41:14 EDT 2009

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  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.,
>
Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship.
Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project?
Instead of advocating censorship? Milton.

> 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.
>
More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are
here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense.

Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join?

regards
joe baptista

>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list
>
>
>
> Dear All
>
>
> 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.
>
> Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date
> announcements etc by list administrators.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
>
>
>
>
> 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> 2 Cutten St
> Horison
> Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
> South Africa
> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
> _______________
> áâãçéêíóôõúç
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090814/41c810d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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