RE: [ga] List Monitors

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roberto GA [mailto:ga_list@hotmail.com]
|> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 3:49 AM
|> To: dassa@dhs.org; ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors
|>
|> It is a good idea, but I see some problems with it.
|> If we codify this into a strict rule, the danger is that a
|> group of 5-10% participants can manage to shut up somebody
|> that they disagree with.
|> While this is in principle possible by the List Monitor,
|> at least the List Monitor is taking full responsibility
|> for his/her actions, and is accountable to the GA (he/she
|> can be removed, for instance).
|> OTOH, an organized minority can do damage without being
|> accountable to the majority.

The numbers can be set in such a way that a "organised minority" can
not "take over" the process.  List Monitors would still have a place
to oversee the process and to provide human intervention where
necessary.  This would be a requirement as it would be necessary to
monitor abuse of the abuse system.  The human intervention would be
removed from the content however.

|> I think that the only way out is human intervention, by
|> respected (on the whole) and accountable person, on the
|> basis of *draft* rules, with the possibility to apply
|> (motivated) exceptions. Of course, the "performance" of
|> this person is easily measured by the number of objections
|> to his/her judgement: if the GA starts disagreeing too much,
|> maybe it's time for either the list monitor to change the
|> parameters of his/her judgement, or it is time to change
|> List Monitor.

The problems you have with my suggestion apply in more severity with
the approach you are suggesting.  It is much easier for a single or
multiples (small numbers) of List Monitors to highjack the abuse
process and cause damage to its credibility.  My suggestion shares the
responsibility out to the participants and doesn't leave it on the
shoulders of a single or couple of volunteers.  Respect for any
individual is hard to come by in a mailing list like the GA, my
understanding is it has a fluctuating membership.  If the membership
was consistant, it may be easier.

I often see this concern of minority groups taking over mailing lists
and other mechanisms of groups.  I don't know what people think the
majority would be doing whilst such attempts are being conducted.  If
a minority can take over any system, then that system deserved to be
taken over as the other participants clearly were either not capable
or not willing to make it effective.  I see such concerns as stemming
from the concept of a small number of people actually being (wanting
to be) in positions of authority and not coming from the process of
having wide effective participation.  Instead of building for large
numbers of participants and actively working to put mechanisms into
place to deal with all the issues, we see people building  moats and
making sure the drawbridge can be raised quickly.  The idea is to push
the walls over, fill the moat in and let all participate and take
responsibility for the security and growth of the group.

The more we can move away from having small numbers of people
responsible for functions and push those functions out to the whole
group to be responsible the better.

I also think it is a dangerous precedent to begin relying on the
judgements of individuals.  We need processes that rely on the
judgement of the group as a whole.  This is especially true when
discussing "exceptions" to any rules and processes.

The line "this person is easily measured by the number of objections
to his/her judgement: if the GA starts disagreeing too much," also
raises the hair on the back of my neck.  It is loaded with subjective
assessments.  The whole process is flawed once you introduce so much
subjectivity into not only the rulings but also the performance
indicators.

As with the List Chairs, the List Monitors need to be looking to the
list participants themselves for direction and judgement.  The
positions are there to focus the needs and objectives of the list
participants.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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