Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 21:24 29/05/2001 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2001-05-29 11:59:51 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>>Yes. I have made the (bold?) suggestion in the WG that membership of the 
>>GA (and especially posting rights on the list) should be endorsed by a 
>>minimum of 5 other individual GA members. (number of 5 is of course open 
>>to debate) This would make each poster to the GA list a sort of 
>>"representative" with accompanying rights and obligations.
>
>I object.
>
>This proposal basically means that you have to know some members of some 
>kind of GA mafia in order to even get a chance to get your voice heared.

Using GA-full for this could solve that problem and in effect create a sort 
of "lower chamber".

Thomas, I am not firmly wedded to any of these ideas; I was just responding 
to pained cries about the GA's credibility.
Obviously lots of details would need to be worked out if such a system is 
to satisfy all.
If the idea finds no support, I will not waste my time with details.

What I do notice however is that there are  vested interests to prove 
on-line democracy unworkable.
A dysfunctional GA suits them eminently.
The last thing they would want is increased respectability and credibility.


--Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz


--
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