Compromise (Re: [ga] Another Resignation)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 08:04 11.02.00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>The problem is Harald, we haven't even seen a reasonable attempt beyond
>your original document which was instituted in its entirety despite
>substantial debate on specific provisions.

Let's see....I made a list of issues that I thought controversial.
These included:

- Whether there should be a requirement for identification:
   6 opinions voiced, 4 in favour. Proposal kept.
- Whether people should be allowed to participate under an assumed name:
   2 opinions voiced, both in favour. Proposal changed.
- Whether mail addresses should be public (WHO command)
   7 opinions voiced, 4 against. Proposal kept.
- Whether the unfiltered list should be archived:
   9 opinions voiced, 8 in favour. Proposal changed.
- Whether the unfiltered archive should be public:
   10 opinions voiced, 6 in favour, 4 against. Proposal changed.

I don't see this as "instituting the original document in its entirety".

>  There is also the issue of
>which list an individual is subscribed to by default, which I strongly
>believe should be the *unfiltered* list. I am quite capable and happy to
>spend the 30 seconds or so it takes to subscribe to the filtered list.
>However this too didn't seem to be up for compromise.

Indeed it did not seem so.
This question is the core of our disagreement.
I believe that the GA, in order to function, must function as a 
deliberative assembly. And the assembly must have exactly one place that is 
its place of discussion - not two.

The "default is the unfiltered list" sounds so innocent - but it defines 
the assembly's place of discussion to be that list.

I believe that it is *required* for *any* assembly to have rules that allow 
chastising of improper behaviour, including allowing someone to be 
"virtually ejected" from the assembly, by being refused the right to speak.
I also believe that this is a very drastic measure, and one not to be 
undertaken lightly. On the requirements for imposing this measure, and on 
the rules for coming to a conclusion that they must be imposed, I am 
willing to compromise a lot - as long as the result does not require 
something known to be impossible (such as an unanimous vote by the GA.....).

But on the basic principle - that an assembly, in order to have civil 
discourse, must have the right to refuse people the right to speak *in the 
designated forum of that assembly* - I don't see the possibility of compromise.

It is a clear YES or NO. No third alternative is possible.

                      Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

--
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