(Note from moderator: some people feel very strongly about the list's atmosphere, but others just want to get some news every day and don't care how the list is conducted. I've decided, after discussions with Audrie Krause at the CPSR national office, not to post any more messages on whether Craig or Richard or anybody else did the right or wrong thing. However, I received a number of interesting messages about general principles that people would like to see governing behavior on mailing lists. I will post these here, and ask people to drop the subject of list etiquette and purpose.--Andy) Sender: •••@••.••• Dear c-r: Sorry for more of same, but I guess I want to get my two cents worth in, rather than get the fire extinguishers out. Isn't that what freedom of speech means? But along with personal freedom comes personal responsibility. Here are a few suggestions that help me to gain insight in my dealings with others: 1. To preserve an open mind, I frequently say, "You could be right." And then I think about it in those terms. 2. I have tried to change my language patterns to always say, "I disagree." instead of "You are wrong." It makes all the difference in the world in how I am perceived (and listened to). Since my goal is to communicate, I have found that this language is much more effective. With the personal freedom of speech, the personal responsibility that accompanies the freedom is to become skillful in its use (at least _one_ of the responsibilities, that is). Also, new ideas cannot be grafted onto a closed mind. By the way, I object to Marilyn's statement, and I do not believe any reason needs to be given for the objection to be valid. But I will reveal that my main objection is that the statement would be held out as a consensus, when it clearly is not. I think such a statement will end up generating more heat than light. The basic problem is not new; the problem is the usurpation of my freedom of speech, and this is an ancient and ongoing battle. It is not just "us against the government", but is as basic as my learning self-discipline and respect so that _I_ do not usurp anyone else's freedoms, period. First, I must learn to clean my own side of the street. When I criticize others' communications and ideas, first I must look at my motives in doing so. Is it a desire for control spawned by fear (usually that I am not good enough)? Or ego? If so, I need to rethink my responsibilities, so that I do not become guilty of the very evil that I am fighting against. All of this takes maturity and personal spiritual growth, IMHO. I constantly work on it, and it is not easy for me. But, open communication between myself and others is the only way I can get those new ideas, if I can only take the time to listen, think, and respond from the right motives. Kindness and gentleness are strengths, not weaknesses. I think this is where Netiquette is a very useful thing...it greases the mechanisms of the Internet society and thus makes for more efficient workings. I think Heinlein said the same thing about manners, didn't he? The first thing to go in a society in decline...? Anyway, it's late, but there's about two cents worth, and as always, Thanks for listening, Connie Page @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: •••@••.••• (Marilyn Davis) Subject: Re: Online PR: consensus Dear Friends, I think the answer to our problems is a new, more democratic list, an experimental adjunct to cyber-rights. The intention of the second list will be to decide these important issues and publicize our decisions. We'll try to grow as big and as fast as we can. We can make our own rules. Andy, Richard, Craig, Arun, and other CPSR leaders, will CPSR *please* sponsor an eVoted list for this purpose? It's $50 set-up and $20/month. In a few months, eVote 2.0 will be released and CPSR can run it at cpsr.org forever for $80. **** Glen Raphael sent me a particularly long post from this list that he guessed that I missed. Indeed I did! My own stuff was first and I forgot how the posts are strung together. :^] I remember being disappointed in the response at that time. Not now! The various posts had several exciting other suggestions for a consensus statement. And, I'm convinced! Now my favorite consensus statement (from the adjunct list) is: -- from Glen Raphael > If you reworded it "government must not pass regulations that drive up the > cost of access to email" I could probably support that, but it would be Richard, isn't that what you wanted all along? I don't remember that you ever said that you wanted the government to step in at this point. You just worried that they'd step in badly. When you talk about some central control, you're talking about the long-term vision, aren't you? We have plenty of time to think about that, don't we? If there is central control, why should it be the US FCC? > roughly equivalent to saying "government must not pass regulations." ALL All the better, right? For now, at least. --- I once said: > present an argument specific to the proposal under consideration. > Otherwise you are only being disruptive to the process and, in a face > to face meeting, risk expulsion. When I said this, I didn't think that anyone here would behave so rudely that anyone else would want to expell him. I was trying to impart a sense of the responsibility of a live meeting to this meeting -- to improve the emulation. Live meetings can arrive at democratic decisions. Why not us? * Marilyn * * * Marilyn Davis, Ph.D.-------------- * ---- eVote - online voting software | * To participate in the beta 3790 El Camino Real, #147 * * write •••@••.••• Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA * * (415) 493-3631 ------------- * * -------- •••@••.••• ------- * @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: Elizabeth Schwartz <•••@••.•••> This happens so often with non-profit groups: old-timers split into factions, each accusing the other of using the group for their own purposes, each insisting that they care more about the group... I've seen it happen in coffeehouses and co-ops and political movements... Guys: please take it outside. I don't want to read hundreds of lines of who said what. If you can't keep it professional you ALL need a break. Thanks, Betsy PS equating subscribing to a list with having an opinion on an issue is not well thought-out. Nobody has asked my opinion on anything, and in fact I'm still not quite sure what this list is for. I just find some of the posts interesting and toss most of the rest of them out unread. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: "G.S. Aikens" <•••@••.•••> The other day I suggested that the medium was not the best for reaching consensus. If one thinks of consensus as coming to agreement on an action to be taken in the "real" world, I think this is true. However, I also think that in creating threads of discourse we are creating a concrete object in and of itself. I think this concrete object, or thread, does have something to do with consensus to the degree that it clarifies the outlines of a topic that is the subject of negotiation and debate. In this way it is possible to create boundaries for a discussion of an issue. It is also possible to promote civility. The recent submissions to this list contribute to my belief in this medium as an awesome tool to clarify boundaries of discourse and reinforce civil behavior. Best to all, Scott Aikens Tel: 01223-571-170 E-Mail: •••@••.••• WWW: http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/www/gsa1001.htm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: Charles Bell <•••@••.•••> I've been sitting here in my foxhole watching the salvos fly over my head and (like many another in similar positions) wondering what the war is really all about. It reminds me of the Great Egg War in Lilliput. Leaving to one side the personality conflict between the respective rulers ...er, co-leaders...the question seems to be: should any individual or faction draw up a position paper on any issue and present it to the world as the `consensus' (please note correct spelling) of this group of 500 distinguished Net-surfers? I hope I am not hurting anyone's feelings if I suggest that the world really doesn't care. Our group is neither large enough, powerful enough nor famous enough to carry any more weight than that of an equal number of individuals randomly drawn from a set of telephone directories. So it is *not worth* anyone's expenditure of anger or anguish to debate the issue of consensus. As someone whose name was mentioned obiter dictu in the genesis of this debate (and who does indeed agree with Richard's assessment of corporate predation) -- I should like to offer a suggestion as to how to handle this proposed statement to the outside world, and any such statements that may be proposed in the future: Let the drafter put the statement on the list and invite members to sign their names or even (after the manner of the U.S. Supreme Court) to offer *brief* concurring opinions. After a given period, perhaps a week, let the original drafter take all such signatures and concurrences, bundle them together with a covering letter and release them to the world as representing -- not the unanimous opinion of this list or of cpsr, but of the undersigned group of thoughtful and experienced Internet users. I believe that such papers will carry a useful payload to the target with a greatly reduced risk of explosion on the launch pad. Charles Bell @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: •••@••.••• (Chris Schaefer) Subject: cr purpose.. for me! In the interest of shedding a bit more light on "the" purpose of the list, I figured I would pipe up with what -I- use it for. Since this is probably my first post, you can tell that it not a forum for debate for me. The fact is that the issues surrounding this list are not of the highest priority in my life. Nonetheless, I do think they are important. So, why do I lurk? Basically because I think that debate is what keeps people honest. So, be looking in on a list which has a certain amount of healthy debate, I figure that noone is bending the truth too much. So essentially it's a news source which I feel that I can trust to certain extent because of the debate. Now on to another topic. I practice a decision making system within many of the groups which I'm involved in which is called "consensus." In order for a decision to be made in that group there must be NO objections to the proposal at hand. I honestly don't think this is very practicle for a diverse group of 500 people who can't even meet face to face. However there IS something which I feel can be useful. At certain points in the consensus meeting process the facilitator can state whatever she/he feels is the "sense of the meeting." This is NOT an attempt to give one unified decision which the group has made, but rather an attempt to summarize ALL of the various viewpoints that have been expressed. (and yes, these summaries are open for "refinement" ) A slightly elaborated version might even attempt to explain how and why these view points DO differ. Instead of the unified decision the "product" of the group is a deeper understanding of the various aspects of an issue. I note that Henry Huang's most recent post seems to be explaining a very similar thing. So that's the purpose of Cyber-rights, FOR ME, and a hoped for direction which it might take. -Chris- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris Schaefer Email: •••@••.••• Professional Bit Twiddler and student of reality. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~