I thought I'd make this question separate so that it doesn't take over Rusty's thread about opening the whole site. Clearly some of us want to throw it all open, but equally clearly others don't. So one possible solution would be to open up one or more fora to public access.

My question about that is whether such an increased level of traffic would be fair to Muga, and if not how would we fund a move off of his personal bandwidth.

But there's also the larger question of whether opening up a window would feel satisfying to those who want a free-for-all.

So does anyone have an opinion about this?

So does anyone have an opinion about this?
What you are describing is what I envisioned. I thought we should indefinitely have both - an all-comers board and an invitation board. That allows people to "qualify" on the public board so we don't have a free-for-all on the invitation board.

So does anyone have an opinion about this?
What you are describing is what I envisioned. I thought we should indefinitely have both - an all-comers board and an invitation board. That allows people to "qualify" on the public board so we don't have a free-for-all on the invitation board.

too late, heh.

I disagree with having an ongoing private discussion.

too late, heh.

I disagree with having an ongoing private discussion.
Do you object to others doing that?

too late, heh.

I disagree with having an ongoing private discussion.
Do you object to others doing that?

That's what I meant.

Structure can prevent a 'free-for-all.'

But I don't see what's inclusive about structuring the discussion in a classist manner.

too late, heh.

I disagree with having an ongoing private discussion.
Do you object to others doing that?

That's what I meant.

Structure can prevent a 'free-for-all.'

But I don't see what's inclusive about structuring the discussion in a classist manner.

You can't handwave your structure into existence, though, Rusty. If you want structure, then surely it's on you to provide the mechanism.

If there are things that people felt freer to say behind closed doors and think it should stay behind closed doors, lock them up. But a two-tiered system is the beginning of the end. THAT is what happened at PI. Talk about class.

too late, heh.

I disagree with having an ongoing private discussion.
Do you object to others doing that?

That's what I meant.

Structure can prevent a 'free-for-all.'

But I don't see what's inclusive about structuring the discussion in a classist manner.

You can't handwave your structure into existence, though, Rusty. If you want structure, then surely it's on you to provide the mechanism.

I've tried starting that dialogue multiple times. You in particular waved off participating in that discussion.

There are a number of possible mechanisms. Some stuff to peruse in that regard:

The open politics theory combines aspects of the free software and open content movements with multilateral assumptions of postmoderism. It promotes decision making methods claimed to be a more open, less antagonistic, and more capable of determining what is in the public interest with respect to public policy issues. The cost for these advantages is reliance on social software, with accompanying systemic biases that open politics advocates seek to overcome in various ways.

While it can be confused with the vaguely defined idea of "open source politics", open politics is not so much a movement as a theory based on participatory democracy and deliberative democracy, informed by e-democracy and netroots experiments, applying argumentation framework for issue-based argument as they evolved in academic and military use through the 1980s to present. Some variants of it draw on the theory of scientific method and market methods, including prediction markets and anticipatory democracy, even on wiki troll culture.

Online services that include or included some elements of open politics include makethecase.net, openpolitics.ca, dkosopedia.com, sourcewatch.org, anarchopedia.org, debatepoint.com, wikocracy.org, yoism.org, longnow.org, Imagine Halifax and Green Party of Canada Living Platform. wikinfo.org and Wikipedia are also sometimes cited as examples, though opinions vary widely.
Deeper links @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_politics

http://www.groupspace.org/DemeWiki/Onli ... ationLinks (http://www.groupspace.org/DemeWiki/OnlineDeliberationLinks)

This is what Paul Thompson's excellent 9/11 timeline at cooperativeresearch.org does:

A folksonomy is an Internet-based information retrieval methodology consisting of collaboratively generated, open-ended labels that categorize content such as Web pages, online photographs, and Web links. A folksonomy is most notably contrasted from a taxonomy in that the authors of the labeling system are often the main users (and sometimes originators) of the content to which the labels are applied. The labels are commonly known as tags and the labeling process is called tagging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy

A snip of an interesting little article:

Liberty when construed as "freedom from" has the important advantage of tending to organize a commons: a space where mutual, overlapping, conflicting or unilateral interests may be negotiated. Accordingly, "though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence."
http://www.v-2.org/displayArticle.php?article_num=339

I think a mere discussion forum will never avoid the communication breakdowns that have happened here. Nor will it provide the robust connection of the contributors' 'dots' or a meaningful resource for research and reading (rather than simply discussing).

So far though, it appears no one is very interested in tackling the discovery and discussion of alternatives but me. Meanwhile, there have been many other things vying for my time, not least controverting all this 'feelings' crap. That and REAL LIFE.

If there are things that people felt freer to say behind closed doors and think it should stay behind closed doors, lock them up. But a two-tiered system is the beginning of the end. THAT is what happened at PI. Talk about class.
How should we solve the 'open it up'/'keep it closed' conflict, Raph? Majority rule? (I'm serious)

Majority rule is often dictated by those in power. Watch them bow to the one perceived to be in charge- Skinner, Tinoire.. Question authority and always be wary of those who seek to be in charge--especially when they are claiming to bring superior intellectual gifts to the poor ignorant sheeplike masses.

I second Anax:

Jump.

Majority rule is often dictated by those in power. Watch them bow to the one perceived to be in charge- Skinner, Tinoire.. Question authority and always be wary of those who seek to be in charge--especially when they are claiming to bring superior intellectual gifts to the poor ignorant sheeplike masses.

I second Anax:

Jump.

Ditto.

We could just dump all but selected prior content and start over publicly. It ain't like this is some sentimental archive.

But GODDAMMIT, we had better get some STRUCTURE done. I am telling you, this problem in communication is structural.

But GODDAMMIT, we had better get some STRUCTURE done. I am telling you, this problem in communication is structural.
Rusty, 'True Believers' said the same thing about object-oriented programming. It would provide STRUCTURE. Except that the plate-of-spaghetti programmers, the ones who the Believers wanted to 'structure', simply ended up writing object-oriented spaghetti.

The only usable structure is already within us, if it's anywhere. If you think that's not so, then come up with a structure system that will ENFORCE itself, if you can (I don't think there is any such thing, but who knows).

Because unless your structure-system enforces itself, it's simply something else to argue about for the people who like arguing, uproar, and going-in-circles. This game of Uproar that's been going on now for what, 3 weeks?, never needed to have happened at all. If everyone felt the obligation to stay engaged and talk about things in an enquiring way, with as few preconceptions as possible, none of the kerfuffle would ever have happened. But too many people do like a little game of Uproar. It makes life so much more exciting. And because they like it, and want it, and will do what they need to do to get it, we're where we are instead of where we could be.

If everyone felt the obligation to stay engaged and talk about things in an enquiring way, with as few preconceptions as possible, none of the kerfuffle would ever have happened. But too many people do like a little game of Uproar.

Good morning to you.

I don't know who you may be referring to. In this small group, it is fair to ask.

Indeed, I can think of no one here who relishes that sort of thing. Should we ask whomever these people are to leave? Do you think we can agree on who these people are?

I still say it is structural. So do many other people from the reading I have been doing.
http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/vi ... =1530#1530 (http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1530#1530)

I don't know who you may be referring to. In this small group, it is fair to ask.

Indeed, I can think of no one here who relishes that sort of thing. Should we ask whomever these people are to leave? Do you think we can agree on who these people are?
I considered the original trouble here to be a witch hunt - the outing and confrontation and continual pestering of offenders and attempts to rally the mob in support of that - and now you are calling for identifying and eliminating members. That may not be your intention - I suspect that you are enthusiastic about a particular set of ideas as to how the board should be run and therefore not as aware of the collateral damage being caused as you might otherwise be.

Rusty you have taken over here, and are pushing hard for your ideas on every thread. Since it is your board, why not just go ahead and do what you want to do with it? Then the rest of us will be free to participate or not as we choose and we will know where we stand.

I don't know who you may be referring to. In this small group, it is fair to ask.

Indeed, I can think of no one here who relishes that sort of thing. Should we ask whomever these people are to leave? Do you think we can agree on who these people are?
I considered the original trouble here to be a witch hunt - the outing and confrontation and continual pestering of offenders and attempts to rally the mob in support of that - and now you are calling for identifying and eliminating members. That may not be your intention

Merely because you consider what happened a witch hunt does not make it so. I don't think it was at all. Raphaelle and I had very different responses even though we both disagreed with wolf's comment.

My intention above was to question the veracity of Mairead's opinion. I don't for a moment think wolf was trying to create a dust up. I am not literally calling for anyone's elimination. Thus the question


Do you think we can agree on who these people are?


I suspect that you are enthusiastic about a particular set of ideas as to how the board should be run and therefore not as aware of the collateral damage being caused as you might otherwise be.

Being caused by me, you mean. Why not just say that? I had no problem saying you fucked up the dialogue. It's OK for you to opine similarly about me. I am not mad at you and won't be if you say that.


Rusty you have taken over here,

I have? Isn't that subjective rather than objective? From whom did I take it over? You?


and are pushing hard for your ideas on every thread.

That's a travesty?

In particular, that's a bad thing when 'my ideas' are for remedying the communications breakdown we agree occured?

Did you miss this post, the one that concurs with me?: These criteria are generally satisfied by a wiki or some other collaborative workspace in which multiple points of view are conveyed and reviewable in "living documents" that reflect, on an ongoing basis, what the community thinks.

They are not generally satisfied by any type of blog or other threaded media (JUST EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING SINCE *BEFORE* THIS SITE CAME IN TO BEING), which have editorial problems that prevent equal power relationships from operating.

Some theorists believe open politics ideals require wiki troll culture to be fully implemented - a group of persons actively conspiring to reject all authority involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_politics
http://www.populistindependent.org/phpb ... =1530#1530 (http://www.populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1530#1530)


Since it is your board, why not just go ahead and do what you want to do with it? Then the rest of us will be free to participate or not as we choose and we will know where we stand.

What I want to do with it is to model what real world socialism in practice does.

I wish I could understand why you seem to find that a unworthy, or merely unworkable, aspiration. Wide open discussion does not achieve that goal, obviously. A private area does not, obviously. A combination of the two is not remotely socialist in its structure, but rather is completely classist.

What other possibilities have we yet to contemplate?