[discuss] History/Summary of discussion on /1net till 30/01/2014

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at ccianet.org
Tue Feb 4 08:38:28 UTC 2014


On 4 Feb 2014, at 04:24, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:


> 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).

From where I sit, incentivising people to post more so they can get counted more is the opposite of what we should be aiming for.

> 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).

That is generally how it works with a group of people in a room with no rules - the squeaky wheel gets the grease. 

> What does this tell us?  That an unregulated scrum is not a great multistakeholder model.  That



> 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."

As the civil society people can attest, using a wiki-type document (they use EtherPad) to come to agreement works and is much more efficient than serial email posting. I will say - again - that we need more than a single list, and we need more than just email. I see from Adiel's response to this idea that he sees it as "worth exploring." Sorry, but when I hear that in Geneva it's a polite way of saying "it might happen three years from now after a lot more discussion."

If all /1net is ever going to be is one email list and a bunch of committees with volunteers, no minutes of meetings, no agendas in advance, etc. then we're all just wasting a lot of time. IMHO.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140204/003b1756/signature.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list