[discuss] History/Summary of discussion on /1net till 30/01/2014
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Tue Feb 4 03:24:16 UTC 2014
This is an interesting document, and I applaud the hard work it took to pull it together. It is a telling snapshot of /1net[discuss], but perhaps not quite in the way you intended.
As Jorge did, I also found the document to be rather one-sided, but I do not think it is "inaccurate." Rather, I think that it is quite instructive about how /1net[discuss] is functioning at this time. I think the one-sided nature of the document shows clearly the effect that a relatively few high-velocity "power posters" can have on creating the illusion of a perceived "result" on a particular topic (I would not use the word "consensus" to describe these results, since they are nothing of the sort).
The document is merely a reflection or observation of what is happening here. It's an interesting kind of "majority rule" -- where the majority is counted on a "per post" basis rather than a "per head" basis. The result is a skewed view of the state of play on a number of points. It would be interesting to compare the number of posts per participant to the stated conclusions in the document -- I think there would be a high correlation (i.e., that those who post the most have pulled the conclusions towards their point of view).
What does this tell us? That an unregulated scrum is not a great multistakeholder model. That those who spend the most time making their points have gotten their points across the most (I was going to say "best" but I think that is dead wrong -- the point is the sheer numerosity of posts on certain positions has created a perception that those positions are the most widely held or the most persuasive, when they are only the most re-stated.).
What does this also tell us? If you think Adiel's document is one-sided (and not in favor of your positions), then you need to participate more and be more diligent and persistent and indefatigable in your posts and replies (and counter-replies and surreplies). If you see a lot of posts going by that you disagree with, you can't let them be. You need to engage them, even if you think they are blather and not worthy of reply. Apparently, if they are not replied to, they become the balance of opinion of /1net[discuss]. This seems to be a corollary to the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Maybe this is a reason for a posting limit (which I actually do not favor), since heavy-duty posting has the effect of "stuffing the ballot box." Or maybe this is a reason to look for another way to determine what conclusions (if any) are being reached on /1net[discuss]. And maybe this is a sign that there are some over- and under-representation issues here. In particular, the "private sector" seems fairly under-represented relative to other stakeholder categories. One of the virtues of the consensus-driven multistakeholder process is that it tends to bring all the voices into the result, not only the most insistent ones.
Finally, I believe discussion must continue on these topics. I find your statement that they can continue "if needed" a little odd and off-putting -- this implies that the positions and viewpoints in the attached document could be the final resting places for a number of the topics under discussion here. Rather, I would view the whole thing as a midstream report, other than perhaps the historical background (and even that is a work in progress as far as summaries of history go). Frankly, I don't think there was any idea that the list would be distilled at any given point and conclusory statements would be made about the "center of gravity" on certain items. As such, I think it would be unfair to call "full time" and tote up the score on any item under discussion. To suggest that discussions need to be "reopened" on certain "aspects" is to suggest that these aspects have been "closed," and that unless expressly challenged, this document represents the "conclusions" of /1net[discuss] as to the points therein reviewed. That is a disturbing concept.
I think a wiki could be a good idea for dealing with this document, ideally with a way to annotate and comment on the text (I'm thinking more "track changes" and less "talk page"), rather than just engaging in "edit wars."
I look forward to the continuing discussions.
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 6:21 PM
To: Jorge Amodio
Cc: discuss at 1net.org List
Subject: Re: [discuss] History/Summary of discussion on /1net till 30/01/2014
Hello Jorge, this is not a conclusive document (the discussion continue on these topics if needed), if you disagree or think it does not accurately represent what happened on the list let me know what you think is inaccurate and maybe reopen the discussion about that aspect. A debate about who wrote it should not be the focus here. I like your suggestion of using a Wiki which is worth exploring.
On 2014-02-04, at 02:59 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Who is/are the author/s and what is the goal of this one sided document ?
> A wiki will be more appropriate as a tool to develop some bottom-up effort to produce a document such this one with much broad participation.
> I guess we don't learn that this kind of stuff keeps making whatever 1net is or pretend to be, very hard to digest.
>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> Find in the attached document further summary/history of what happened on the /1net open discussion list since it has started.
>> - a.
>> <1net summary (to 30 jan).pdf>
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the discuss