... diversity of our opinions and styles.

Diversity of intentions and motives is the problem.

Differences of opinions can be absorbed. But you can't build anything when..... what? Anyone?

Do you really think that the unbelievable and highly unlikely uproars and destruction and disruption that happens on these boards is a result of differing opinions and styles?

Fuck, it is as though the house keeps catching on fire every few minutes, and everyone says oh well I guess things do catch on fire, what can we do?

How are we supposed to sit and get any work done in a burning house?

The house is not that damned inflammable, and spontaneous combustion is quite rare.

As for traffic, I have a big list of people I wanted to invite here. But I am not going to lure good people into yet another poisonous trap. They all ask the same thing - has the problem of infltrators, disruptors and gate-keepers been solved so we can actually have a normal human conversation and get something accomplished? If not, they aren't interested. They have been burned too many times. We can always just say that they are all paranoid and imagining things and go along la ti da and suffer through yet another round of the same old shit I suppose. Then we can wring our hands and wrack our brains trying to figure out just what we can do to change things.

I have watched the same pattern for years. I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible for the same thing to happen again and again and again merely by accident, or as the inevitable outcome of putting more than two people in the same room.

I still say that is an artifact of the medium, the forum. If your suggested bylaws, et al were a drupal page that required consent - derived here, but in a more deliberative manner - before they could be changed, or before a change could be made part of the document, there would be a measure of control.

We can either try it or try authoritarianism. Why not, if only because it is new and ~possibly less authoritarian, do we not take what's behind curtain number 1?

Diversity of intentions and motives... I guess there is a fair bit of that. But one man's troll is another man's sage. Not to mention those mercurial weirdos like Mairead and me :)

Whacha gonna do, be a US style torturer and killer or a Cuban style educator who caught and released the same CIA troll over and over in '61? I'll take the latter.

The moral authority of a regime rests with its transparency and its justice. Neither seem to be held in the highest regard here so far. That's not to say I am fingering you or anyone else. I just say that it seems the easy ideas are the ones with the most appeal. They'll also be the ones with the least effect.

Just sayin'

Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:14 pm
Originally at:
http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/vi ... =2836#2836 (http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=2836#2836)

OK so who DID write this?

"I bought socialistindependent.com, .net, .org and can point them to this site. As for renaming it, that might oughtta be put to a vote of some kind, which of course we have no procedure for... "

On edit - I see my question was answered.

Listen PPLE why don't we cut the drama, set up a system and move forward? Three legs to the stool, and all problems are solved. Leg one - ownership and protection of the domain; leg two - an admin; leg three - a charter and a democratic process for decision making. Checks and balances, certainty and predictability for everyone. Delegation, teamwork, transparency, areas of responsibility and accountability.

I am not sure what drama you are referring to, but I have been waiting patiently to have that discussion for over two months now.

I thought sure it was going to start in earnest last week when you did for the first time make some substantive suggestions.

Originally at:
http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/vi ... =3004#3004 (http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=3004#3004)

Do you wish to be an owner?

Do you care who owns this site?

Do you wish to participate in the administration of this site?

If not, would you also expect to opt out of participating in the governance of the socialist society you advocate for? (Needless to say, my bias is towards participation in more than just writing by the members)

Do you care who administers the site? or whether that is a fully transparent process to all members?

<edit, format>

Do you wish to participate in creating a charter for this site?

What are the principles you think are important?

Would you agree that this document, out of its sheer importance and near-term impermanence, would best be pinned or otherwise prevented from sinking with old threads?

What are the things you like and dislike about other political discussion boards you have participated in? What are things you like and dislike about this place, such as it is?

Do you wish to participate in the administration of this site?

If not, would you also expect to opt out of participating in the governance of the socialist society you advocate for? (Needless to say, my bias is towards participation in more than just writing by the members)

Do you care who administers the site? or whether that is a fully transparent process to all members?

<edit, format>

You talking to Mike or all of us? I'll assume the latter. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure of what administration entails. Control of membership(approval, banning, etc), setting the parameters of discussion, establishing a "mission statement", technical and financial aspects, what else am I missing?

Now, I'm one lazy sob and I might be willing to let others handle such drudgery if I didn't give a shit about what we're talking about. But I do, both because I ought to shoulder my share of the weight and because one should practice what one preaches. Good practice for the "real world" in any case, a possible model for other organization. Otherwise, I'm clueless.

Good practice for the "real world" in any case, a possible model for other organization. Otherwise, I'm clueless.

That was my thinking. But somehow it became 'drama'

Excellent questions, much appreciated and worthy of some thought and discussion.

Ownership - the person who owns the domain promarily, and secondarily has control over the server.

There is now an owner, and it is you. That is fine with me, However, it does not work - at least for me - for you to ask us to pretend their is no owner, take on responsibilities and invest in the project and then you will let us know whether or not you aprrove at some point in the future, with it left vague as to what you will or won't do to excerise your authority shpuld you not like the direction things are going.

Example - at one point, in the midst of a thread that was a huge uproar over something Wolf had posted, you said that you would not allow the board to become something or be used for something. I don't remember your exact words, but that was the message I got. Now had someone else said something like that, people would have replied "oh yeah? And what are you going to do about it?" Who would care what they would or wouldn't "allow" - who are they? But when you as the owner say something like that, there is a clear threat of the exercise of authority behind your words.

Admin -

Admin is a responsibility, not a position of power, unless it is abused. When you say anyone can be admin and anything goes, that leads to abuse because you have abrogated responsibility as owner, and have not spelled out how you have delegated authority.

We need three things - an owner, an admin staff, and the membership. Each needs to be independent. Ownership cannot trump admin, and exercise arbitrary power, or admin is useless. Admin cannot arbitrarily wield power over the membership, and the membership cannot exercise arbitrary power over any individual member.

If a member has a complaint, the member gets a hearsing and is not to be steamrolled into submission, If the membership has a problem with admin staff, the membership gets a hearing up to and including replacing admin through a fair and open process. If admin has a problem with the owner, the admin gets a hearing and is nit just arbitrarily over-ruled or forced to submit.

Power flows from the bottom up, but no one is served by an anything- goes free for all – with everyone as an admin. Ownership and admin positions entail a set of responsibilities to the membership, not power over the membership, and under no circumstances should arbitrary power be used to suppress the membership. Nor should the members be left in a fog wondering if and when arbitrary power will be exercised. Owners and admins are required to take a pro-active stance on this, and the burden of proof is on them.

That was my thinking. But somehow it became 'drama'

You are the owner of the board. Mocking and ridiculing a member's concerns is an abuse of power. Your words carry more weight. You have a responsibility because of that.

You asked for a serious discussion. I am cooperating with your request.

Excellent questions, much appreciated and worthy of some thought and discussion.

Ownership - the person who owns the domain promarily, and secondarily has control over the server.

There is now an owner, and it is you.

Actually, it is Mugafuga, whose server I cannot touch and who has had possession of the domains since they were purchased. i merely reimbursed him. Both of us see our status as temporary holders of the keys. Hell, I am not even officially holding them! :)



That is fine with me, However, it does not work - at least for me - for you to ask us to pretend their is no owner, take on responsibilities and invest in the project and then you will let us know whether or not you approve at some point in the future, with it left vague as to what you will or won't do to exercise your authority should you not like the direction things are going.

You are right. And I have no desire to exercise authority. Rather, I have a desire to see something come of this conversation, even if past actions seem to indicate otherwise. For those, I am sorry though not without the caveat that I still believe in the merits of my positions which have been stated a number of times since.



Admin -

Admin is a responsibility, not a position of power, unless it is abused. When you say anyone can be admin and anything goes, that leads to abuse because you have abrogated responsibility as owner, and have not spelled out how you have delegated authority.

We need three things - an owner, an admin staff, and the membership. Each needs to be independent. Ownership cannot trump admin, and exercise arbitrary power, or admin is useless. Admin cannot arbitrarily wield power over the membership, and the membership cannot exercise arbitrary power over any individual member.

If a member has a complaint, the member gets a hearing and is not to be steamrolled into submission, If the membership has a problem with admin staff, the membership gets a hearing up to and including replacing admin through a fair and open process. If admin has a problem with the owner, the admin gets a hearing and is not just arbitrarily over-ruled or forced to submit.

I still prefer to reject the owner concept, at least for this phase of the conversation. The only reason we would need an owner is because the participants here do not care to fully participate. While it is understood that many will not have the energy or zeal you do, I think it is fair to expect and ask for participation that transcends merely lurking and posting. And here of course is where you and I have already determined that our thinking diverges. I will give you out of hand the point that you have the more practical idea. I only have the more socialist one. And we know how successful those often prove to be in practice.



Power flows from the bottom up, but no one is served by an anything- goes free for all – with everyone as an admin. Ownership and admin positions entail a set of responsibilities to the membership, not power over the membership, and under no circumstances should arbitrary power be used to suppress the membership. Nor should the members be left in a fog wondering if and when arbitrary power will be exercised. Owners and admins are required to take a pro-active stance on this, and the burden of proof is on them.

(emphasis added)

Which goes to why I have the abiding interest in deliberative democracy as a model for the collective and transparent task of administration and moderation and content development for the front page.

That was my thinking. But somehow it became 'drama'

You are the owner of the board. Mocking and ridiculing a member's concerns is an abuse of power. Your words carry more weight. You have a responsibility because of that.

You asked for a serious discussion. I am cooperating with your request.

I am coarse, but rest assured Mike, I was not at all trying to mock or ridicule your very valid concerns.
Nor am I interested in myself, or any one person, being the owner.

Actually, it is Mugafuga, whose server I cannot touch and who has had possession of the domains since they were purchased. i merely reimbursed him. Both of us see our status as temporary holders of the keys. Hell, I am not even officially holding them! :)

OK. So we are squatters, former slaves, but massa has run off. You are the reluctant overseer who believes that all men should be free, and who has misplaced the keys and doesn't want them anyway.

How do we each get our 40 acres and a mule?


You are right. And I have no desire to exercise authority. Rather, I have a desire to see something come of this conversation, even if past actions seem to indicate otherwise. For those, I am sorry though not without the caveat that I still believe in the merits of my positions which have been stated a number of times since.

Your positions are no doubt great, Rusty. It has been the lack of clarity as to who is in charge that has caused the confusion, not your positions.


I still prefer to reject the owner concept, at least for this phase of the conversation. The only reason we would need an owner is because the participants here do not care to fully participate. While it is understood that many will not have the energy or zeal you do, I think it is fair to expect and ask for participation that transcends merely lurking and posting. And here of course is where you and I have already determined that our thinking diverges. I will give you out of hand the point that you have the more practical idea. I only have the more socialist one. And we know how successful those often prove to be in practice.

Don't you see that it doesn't matter what you prefer in the way of concepts? The domain name and the server account are in fact owned by someone. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask - "who's house are we crashing at, what is expected in return, how much freedom do we have, and when are they coming back?" You can say that you reject the concept of ownership all you like, but that doesn't change anything. You could say "hey chill man. What are you worried about? We got the house, no one is hassling us, let's party." And maybe you or I won't get too drunk and puke all over the $100,000 imported oriental carpet. But somebody will. In fact, the loose and free spirit of neglect and expediency will attract and encourage the worst behavior.

It doesn't matter whether or not we "need" an owner. There will be an owner, and you canlt just wish that away. We have an owner. We will always have an owner. What we need is the terms and conditions of our tenancy spelled out. Until tonight, I don't even know who the owner was (could have done a whois, but really....) and that took a lot of pressing.

I don't think it is fair at all to put demands on the membership for "more participation" or anything else. I think the demands should be put on the leaders. I think the membership should be catered to and waited on hand and foot and treated as royalty.


Which goes to why I have the abiding interest in deliberative democracy as a model for the collective and transparent task of administration and moderation and content development for the front page.

OK. How do we do that?

Do you wish to participate in creating a charter for this site?

Yes.


What are the principles you think are important?

I think that all of the boards are run as petty dictatorships, and the writers are abused and treated like shit. I favor democracy, due process, individual rights, and separation of powers. I favor everything being set up for the purpose of supporting the contributors, to the point of them being paid to participate. I favor the membership calling all of the shots and getting whatever they need and want, with protections for individual rights from the inevitable formation of packs of attack dogs. I favor representative leadership that is responsive to the membership, and whose job it is to facilitate the member's wishes and needs. I favor the members being supported online and off, whatever that takes. I favor the formation of the equivalent of a judiciary, executive and legislative branch, or some other appropriate dividing of power and responsibility.


Would you agree that this document, out of its sheer importance and near-term impermanence, would best be pinned or otherwise prevented from sinking with old threads?

I think a committee should work on this, then return to the general membership for approval and revisions, and that this should stay in the realm of private deliberations in the meantime so that people are free to speak their minds and get the work done without every straggler or passer-by having the opportunity to piss on it.


What are the things you like and dislike about other political discussion boards you have participated in? What are things you like and dislike about this place, such as it is?

There is only one thing wrong with the other boards and it is the same at every board. The writers - those whose work makes or breaks a board - are treated like dirt, have no rights, and are unpaid slave labor. Since this is precisely analogous to the situation we are all in offline, and represents the very core of what needs to be tackled and overthrown, we are doomed to futility if we are unable or unwilling to tackle it here among ourselves.

If we can;t manage a board democratically, we are just blowing hot air if we think we have anything to offer as to how to run a society democratically.

Actually, it is Mugafuga, whose server I cannot touch and who has had possession of the domains since they were purchased. i merely reimbursed him. Both of us see our status as temporary holders of the keys. Hell, I am not even officially holding them! :)

OK. So we are squatters, former slaves, but massa has run off. You are the reluctant overseer who believes that all men should be free, and who has misplaced the keys and doesn't want them anyway.

How do we each get our 40 acres and a mule?

Quite an analogy. I'll eschew reading anything into it, lest I develop concerns over your intent rather than you variant opinions.



You are right. And I have no desire to exercise authority. Rather, I have a desire to see something come of this conversation, even if past actions seem to indicate otherwise. For those, I am sorry though not without the caveat that I still believe in the merits of my positions which have been stated a number of times since.

Your positions are no doubt great, Rusty. It has been the lack of clarity as to who is in charge that has caused the confusion, not your positions.

I'm mystified by your affection for authority, but thanks for your accolades otherwise.

[/quote]
I still prefer to reject the owner concept, at least for this phase of the conversation. The only reason we would need an owner is because the participants here do not care to fully participate. While it is understood that many will not have the energy or zeal you do, I think it is fair to expect and ask for participation that transcends merely lurking and posting. And here of course is where you and I have already determined that our thinking diverges. I will give you out of hand the point that you have the more practical idea. I only have the more socialist one. And we know how successful those often prove to be in practice.

Don't you see that it doesn't matter what you prefer in the way of concepts? The domain name and the server account are in fact owned by someone. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask - "who's house are we crashing at, what is expected in return, how much freedom do we have, and when are they coming back?" You can say that you reject the concept of ownership all you like, but that doesn't change anything. You could say "hey chill man. What are you worried about? We got the house, no one is hassling us, let's party." And maybe you or I won't get too drunk and puke all over the $100,000 imported oriental carpet. But somebody will. In fact, the loose and free spirit of neglect and expediency will attract and encourage the worst behavior.

It doesn't matter whether or not we "need" an owner. There will be an owner, and you canlt just wish that away. We have an owner. We will always have an owner. What we need is the terms and conditions of our tenancy spelled out. Until tonight, I don't even know who the owner was (could have done a whois, but really....) and that took a lot of pressing.

I don't think it is fair at all to put demands on the membership for "more participation" or anything else. I think the demands should be put on the leaders. I think the membership should be catered to and waited on hand and foot and treated as royalty. [/quote]

The owner needn't be a sole person though, whether we co-opt the capitalist game as I early suggested about forming an LLC or whether we just go it on our own and do something collective that has no connection to US legal precedent.

I am as likely or more than anyone else to puke on the carpet, but I intend to fix that as I pursue more noble causes than self medication :)

As for putting demands on leaders, that presumes there will be some. I am not resting in that premise.


Which goes to why I have the abiding interest in deliberative democracy as a model for the collective and transparent task of administration and moderation and content development for the front page.

OK. How do we do that?[/quote]

Great question and a key part of this discussion, IMO. I look forward to working it out with you and others.

Do you wish to participate in the administration of this site?

Yes.


If not, would you also expect to opt out of participating in the governance of the socialist society you advocate for? (Needless to say, my bias is towards participation in more than just writing by the members)

I am not opting out of anything.


Do you care who administers the site?

Very much so.


or whether that is a fully transparent process to all members?

I do care about that.

Do you wish to be an owner?

No. However, if some sort of ownership by an organization could be set up, I would shoulder my share and participate. I don't want to be sole owner.


Do you care who owns this site?

Yes.

Owner disappears, dies, loses interest, domain name expires, a suit is filed against the site, donations come in, a right wing relative inherits the domain name from the former owner....

By the way, Rusty, I am going through this with you because I very much want to assist you in getting these things ironed out, and because I want to restore the promise that was PopIndy a few weeks ago.

But this process is far TOO transparent in my opinion. Most of the members are not that interested in all of this, and would be happy with the synopsis after the fact, I think, having the opportunity to give input and suggestions for revison at that point. We are showing our hand to any potential enemy, as well, and the process of doing this all in public view constrains the discussion and slows things down.

Most of the members are not that interested in all of this, and would be happy with the synopsis after the fact, I think, having the opportunity to give input and suggestions for revison at that point. We are showing our hand to any potential enemy, as well, and the process of doing this all in public view constrains the discussion and slows things down.

I fear you are right, and I do recognize the tacit threat, FWIW.

I feel like the mysterious masked stranger just showed up at the campfire.

I feel like the mysterious masked stranger just showed up at the campfire.

Naw, you are simply the likely owner, absent some input from other interested parties who see otherwise.

I feel like the mysterious masked stranger just showed up at the campfire.

Naw, you are simply the likely owner, absent some input from other interested parties who see otherwise.

Well, here's otherwise. Mike's got too many opinions. I suspect you'll get them too old Rust-bucket. A law student ought to be able to throw this into trust with a simple vote of the "membership".

No offense, Master Berst, but I couldn't hang out at your site.

But hey, no big protest from me... Just let me know.

.

Well, here's otherwise. Mike's got too many opinions. I suspect you'll get them too old Rust-bucket. A law student ought to be able to throw this into trust with a simple vote of the "membership".

No offense, Master Berst, but I couldn't hang out at your site.

But hey, no big protest from me... Just let me know..

Agreed.