Re: [ga] remote participation

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 08:30 AM 2/18/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>It may make sense for the BOARD to be f2f, but that doesn't mean that rich
>supplicants should have an edge over less wealthy ones.
>
> > The real problem is the GA list and its bad signal-noise
> > ratio.  If the online GA can do everything the in-person
>
>I respectfully disagree.  An even larger problem is that repeat f2f
>players -- those who are paid to attend sessions as lobbyists, primarily
>-- have a huge edge.

One wonders about the base of experience that Prof. Froomkin is using for 
making these strong assessments and recommendations.

There are many, excellent theories about the ways that groups should be 
organized and operate.  The only problem is that many of these theories are 
not practical.

There is extensive experience, in a few forums, with doing online 
process.  Essentially all of them rely on periodic, face-to-face meetings 
for "efficient" consideration and resolution of difficult issues.

Such meetings are not subject to the sort of artificial crippling that 
Professor Froomkin is idealizing.

So, Prof. F., where have you seen your model work?

d/

ps.  If anyone else reading this list is similarly concerned about the 
practicality of the professor's suggestions, they might want to forward my 
note to him.  Prof. F. views participation in open processes as requiring 
that he filter out postings that he finds distasteful.


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