Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
-
At 09:34 AM 12/20/2006, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
>If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enable >mass communication of hundreds of members without having too much >non-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?
Obviously, you don’t, that is, if everyone can present everyone else with a message, and the group is large enough, everyone is overwhelmed with traffic.
There are obvious solutions in common use, but we think that it is very important to develop solutions that don’t depend so much on a benevolent dictator, i.e., a group moderator.
Moderators there will be, but, as it is stated in the AA Traditions, “Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.” If the whole group could walk and quickly reassemble, a rogue moderator would do no harm.
So we envision hierarchies of lists, if it is mailing lists we are talking about.
There are base lists, with relatively few subscribers, few enough that traffic does not overwhelm subscribers. These base lists may be moderated by proxies; there would be many of them in a large organization. Essentially, you can name a proxy and the proxy admits you to his or her list. And maybe even to a list above that, i.e., the list of your proxy’s proxy. This latter list you may read, but you don’t have the right, necessarily, to post to it without approval.
There is a top level list in an organization. Actually, there can be more than one, but I won’t go into that complication. A top level list would typically be open for subscription by any member of the organization. It may conduct polls and any member may vote in them. But the list is moderated; the only people who can post without moderation are high-level proxies, proxies representing a certain minimum number of members, directly or indirectly. There may also be other list members who may post, having been granted the privilege by vote, without being high-level proxies.
The point is that this high-level list is rather closely moderated. If members with posting privileges abuse them, any member who likewise has such privileges may object. Standard Robert’s Rules meeting process has procedures for this…. and members can lose their privileges; they can lose them administratively (i.e., as a decision ad-hoc by a moderator) and it remains democratic if they have the right of appeal. Appeal is to the whole “meeting,” but it might be on a separate list maintained for that purpose. Generally, if the organization is TOP, members would know if censorship was going on. It is not censorship, per se, which is the problem, it is hidden censorship, censorship without due process.
Standard democratic process exists for all this; the trick is to make that process scalable; and delegable proxy is the only solution I’ve seen which does not involve excluding large groups of people from participation and from representation. In theory. We have not seen large-scale DP yet. Soon, hopefully!
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
