[governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh

[Daniel Pimienta]

Although I have abstained to participate, I have followed this heaten 
discussion. Not because of the heat but because I do think what is at 
stake behind Mike Gurstein's questionning of the definition of 
technical and academic category is deeply meaningful at this 
historical stage of the Internet.

I have many years arguing that the historical leadership of 
"computers/telecom skilled people" on the Internet (which has been 
key in the success and absolutely deserve recognition) should be 
released and the relay be passed to "information skilled people". Why 
so? Nothing personal :-) (I am myself originally a "computers/telecom 
skilled person") ! The rationale is that at this stage of the 
evolution the main challenges are no more in the technical layers but 
rather in the upper layers (applications and information). This is 
why consider that librarians and other information skilled groups 
shall take more leadership in the Internet. Most of Mike's argument 
fit in that vision.

Interpreting the past discussion and the official silence of ISOC in 
that discussion from this perspective may offer lights which go much 
beyond personal differences. Are we watching an homeostatic situation 
were a group is resisting changes which appear obvious? Is it a 
matter of establishment and new players to come in facing resistence to change?
===============

That said, the main reason of that note is to offer support to the 
current moderation team. Moderating virtual communities have been my 
main duty from 1988 to 2007 and i know in my flesh the challenges and 
difficulties when it comes to managing flaming situations. Most 
people have good will and wish to see the flame extinguishes at no 
human cost and that explain the avalanche of support to the 
Milton/Anriette statements. Yet the facts are clear if you take the 
moderator glasses and this is the role of Norbert and Sala.

During the heat the main players where Mike, ISOC (which keeps 
silent), Suresh and IT4Change people.
Mike exposed stubbornly his position without personal attacks.
The only personal attacks came from one side and justify the moderator action.
It is indeed interesting that even when support was brought to him, 
Suresh kept the same attitude
(I cite : " while repeating my caution that the agenda being followed 
by it4change here is, longer term, entirely to the detriment of civil 
society at large.").

I have no personal hang-out against Suresh and I trust few twists of 
expressions would be enough for him to adapt to the current rules,
but my neutral spectactor vision is that the moderator are doing 
their job on that matter and the will of many to avoid turmoils is not
enough a reason to obliterate that fact and let them appear as the 
weak part of the situation which would be an injustice.

In solidarity with moderators :-).
Daniel
   


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t