Subject:
|
Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:36:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1711 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article
<FqB237.Aqu@lugnet.com>...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > Ummmmm...... isn't 'appointing' a council somewhat contrary to the way • that
> > Todd has always run LUGNET? (at least so far as I've seen in the last
> > year+) It seems rather backroom and private, which isn't generally the • way
> > I thought things were dealt with around here.
>
> No, it's not intended to be a private council, unless someone takes • something
> off-line personally on their own accord unofficially. Anyone is still • also
> welcome to participate in the discussions (offering opinions, raising
> concerns, making suggestions, etc.).
Ooops, I guess I should have been a bit more clear in my questioning. I
meant that it seems as though the selection of this council has already has
already gone behind closed doors. (I realize that the intent is to have
the council discuss in public) There is talk elsewhere in this thread of
people already having been invited to participate in the council. Such as
this post:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=4629
If I'm not understanding this correctly, maybe someone can set me straight.
I've been following (and participating) in this thread almost from the
beginning, and I still am not entirely sure I know what's going on. The
whole council thing really caught me off guard last night. It wasn't at
all what I was expecting to see happen on LUGNET.
> > What about a good old-fashioned vote by the 200+ paid members of • LUGNET.
> > Might this not be a good time to excercise some democracy?
>
> No, the idea behind the council is to vest or entrust the handling of • delicate
> situations (which often require a lot of time) to a larger (but not so • large
> that it becomes stifled) group of trusted individuals, in the hopes of
> offloading admin time/workload (primarily of the 'judicial' nature) -- • and
> also coming up with hopefully more equitable and fair solutions -- due to • a
> better mixture of viewpoints and issue-interpretations. Involving • everyone
> in everything would be unwise, just as it would be unwise to have popular
> votes on day-to-day legislative issues in the U.S. Senate or House, for
> example. That's why we have Senators, Representatives, Judges, and so • forth
> -- because they're specialists in their particular area. The average • citizen
> of the U.S. doesn't have the time or desire to become a specialist.
Again, I guess I didn't present this idea clearly. I was just suggesting
that the council members themselves be selected by a vote, rather than be
appointed. I agree, trying to involve everyone in every issue would become
impossible immediately. However I propose that simply appointing people to
such a position may be equally unpalatable to some. Why not use this
opportunity to let the membership express itself?
Regards,
Allan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
82 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
