[ga] Re: Observations

["Danny Younger" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Jeff Williams writes that as a result of "a vote on some "List Rules" that
was of questionable legitimacy... the active participants has dropped off
significantly as a result."

I would disagree with this assessment.  In my conversations with others that
do not participate on our list, the general sentiment seems to be, "Why
should I expose myself to the vitriolic attacks that run rampant on the GA
list?"

Part of the problem is that in knowing who is the author of any particular
message, we have those among us who revel in the prospect of attacking the
messenger.   Eliminating the list rules (as some would advocate), will not
solve this problem; neither will more rigid rules or more rigorous
enforcement (as those who have a predilection for such behavior will
continue to find ways to defeat the system).

Perhaps the solution lies in stripping the message header so that author's
identity is not revealed.  In this manner, ideas can only be attacked on the
basis of "content" or "merit".    Of course, any author may choose to add
his/her name to a message posted in the body of the text.

Some will argue that as we are the representatives of the Internet
Community, our names should be on record whenever we post a message.  If
this were true, then equally I would expect to know how our representatives
voted on any particular issue.   As the latter is not currently true, why
should the former be required?

There is a value in having a mechanism that allows for anonymous postings.

On the other hand, perhaps we should know how each individual votes on an
issue, especially if only 91 of us are in fact representing the 29,000,000+
registered domains.  Perhaps our voting registry should be asking for more
details with respect to affiliations; perhaps a declaration of interests
would be in order?

If in fact we decide that it is wise to note how any representative votes,
perhaps our ballot rules should be changed to allow for the possibility of
abstentions, as Joanna rightly noted.

Also, if over 80% of those who cast their votes are not regular participants
on the GA list, perhaps we need to quickly get to work on defining our own
internal procedures for bringing a motion to the floor so that the "silent
majority" will have the opportunity to participate more often.   As each
motion should be followed by a necessary span of time to allow for proper
debate, perhaps a schedule could be devised to accommodate this process.
Those of you interested in pursuing such issues are invited to take up this
discussion on the ga-rules list.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html