Re: civil discourse

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 06:40 AM 5/23/98 +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >I for one have begun faxing Network Solutions daily, to every
> >supervisor whose name I can get, demanding that some action be taken
> >to stop the disruptive behavior here, which is an obvious attempt to
>
> Well, looks like we are going to have an extended run of agreement, William...
>
> This line of effort is exactly what we should endeavor to avoid.  It places
> the decision directly into a single pair of hands, namely the list
> maintainer.  The goal within most Internet processes is for decision making
> to be based on (rough) consensus among all participants.

  I will again for the 1000th time again ask you pointedly Dave, define (Rough)
consensus.  Can you?

  Consensus if determined by a majority of participants in a specific endeavor.

>
>
> There are two ways to do this that seem reasonable to me:
>
> 1.  Have a representative body -- i.e., a few people -- delegated authority
> to assess group rough consensus and declare the action to be taken, such as
> striking someone from the list.  For email list maintenance on "public"
> discussion lists, this has historically been an abhorrent position.
> Perhaps the world is changing enough to require it, but I continue to
> hope/wish not.

  Well I agree that such an action is abhorrent and fachist in nature.  It
should NEVER be allowed on any internet Mailing list.  Censorship
in any of its forms is wrong and flies in the face of Democracy.

  I will also say straight out that from the last sentence in this statement,
that you DO NOT hope/wish that such an idiotic thing such as censorship
or banning someone from a mailing list for putting forth their views.  You
really support it as is evident from this statement.  Your feeble attempt
to convince some that you do, is not working here anyway.

>
>
> 2.  Have each participant on the list take responsibility for terminating
> threads which are unproductive.  That means not responding to people who
> are wasteful.  That means shunning them.  It means everyone shunning them.

  If such an action should be taken, YOU should be its first victim.

>
>
> Unfortunately, too many of us feel the need to get our voices heard and/or
> to make one, last effort to "help" the offending party.   Alas, such
> party's are beyond efforts to help, so that the only real effect of the
> responses is to waste mailing list bandwidth and distract the list from any
> other productive discussion that might take place.

  And this is productive and on topic?  Pardon me?

>
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                Brandenburg Consulting        +1 408 246 8253
> dcrocker@brandenburg.com      675 Spruce Drive        (f) +1 408 273 6464
> www.brandenburg.com        Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA
>
>

regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com