At 06:23 PM 1/19/2007, Ken Kuhlman wrote: >>That's not the only possible solution. Indeed, the solution has been >>known as in widespread use for a long, long time. It's called >>Robert's Rules of Order, and the chair is the equivalent of a >>moderator; the members of the "meeting" have absolute authority over >>the chair at all times, the chair merely acts as the servant of the >>majority, with the proper respect accorded to minority opinion that >>is enshrined in Robert's Rules. > >Sure, we could turn the czar into a bureaucrat & neuter them until >they're powerless outside of a narrowly defined set of rules we >create for them.
Mr. Kuhlman does not understand the function of a chair of an assembly that has not established special rules. Even under Robert's Rules, the authority of the chair is absolute *except* that anyone can at any time appeal. In a relatively informal assembly -- such as the EM list if it does not make drastic changes -- the moderator-chair can act first, according to his or her own interpretation of the rules. This is not "powerless." It is, in fact, almost absolute power, but limited only in retrospect. There is no rule, under Robert's Rules and the rules of most assemblies, so strong that it will prevent the assembly from overruling the chair. What this means is that the ultimate arbiter of the rules is the assembly itself, and an appeal on the rules is decided by majority vote. Thus the so-called "nuclear option" in the U.S. Senate. The chair (the Vice-President of the United States) would make a ruling that the normal cloture rule did not apply to the appointment of Supreme Court justices. This would be a blatant violation of precedent and rules, but the chair has the power to do this. If the chair is willing to take on the resulting opprobrium. Then, presumably, a member offended by the ruling would appeal. The majority has the absolute authority to interpret the rules. Period, end of question. If the majority in the Senate voted to confirm the ruling of the chair, the rules would not be changed, but a precedent would have been established. It is entirely unclear that a majority of Senators, even though the Republicans had a majority, would have voted to confirm the blatant violation of the cloture rule by the chair. A chair under Robert's rules is a bit like a dictator who is continually subject to the authority of those over whom he or she rules. The authority of the chair only applies to the meeting, or related process. The chair's authority over the members is only limited to meeting process, the chair cannot reach out and punish members, beyond ordering the sergeant-at-arms to remove them from the meeting. A moderator of a mailing list can (1) delete offensive posts from the archive), and (2) moderate or ban members. The chair may also propose to take such action, and allow discussion. Or not. The chair decides whether or not discussion of the matter on the list itself is appropriate or not. All this is really common law, taken from standard democratic meeting process, applied to mailing lists. The moderator is *already* the chair of this "meeting." The moderator has *chosen* not to intervene. If we don't like it, we can request that the chair act differently. If we don't like the response of the chair to that, we, in fact, can remove the chair. How would we do this? We would take the meeting elsewhere. The "assembly" is the body of participants, not the list. If those who wish to meeting under conditions different from those which exist here were to simply begin doing this, they are totally free to do so. How could they, practically, speaking, do this? Well, first of all, we all have, if we keep the mail, the email addresses of everyone who has posted to this list, for as far back as our archives go. If one of us decides to start another list, that person, and/or anyone supporting the action, could notify all the other participating members, even if the moderator attempted to suppress the information. But it would surely be odd for the moderator of this list to attempt to do this, it would be utterly in contradiction to the laissez-faire policy which has been followed. Now, what does this mean in practice, with reference to the comment from Mr. Kuhlman? It means that (1) what I proposed for a chair already exists, in the powers of the moderator, (2) any informal assembly, by appointing a chair, can, without establishing a set of rules, which can be a major task in itself, begin to regulate its meeting, even to the extent of dealing with problems which may arise which could not be anticipated in the rules, do it. What this means is that the chair is entrusted with the power to, ad hoc, rule and act on behalf of the members of the meeting. Many informal organizations would prefer to deal with situations as they arise, without a chair, or simply assume that nothing can be done. The problem is that, without a chair or similar function, the situation that arises can prevent the group from effectively dealing with the problem. On this list, a chair would do nothing most of the time. A chair, if the chair considered that a writer was abusing the list, act to protect the list. This need not be done in an arbitrary and dictatorial way; rather, it is done *temporarily* as the chair sees fit. The alleged abuser, or anyone else, may appeal. If the chair attempts to prevent the appeal from being heard, the alleged abuser can easily bypass the chair. *We already have a chair.* It is the list owner, who has the absolute power to regulate the list. If he is paying attention (I think he is), he is responsible for what continues to appear here. He has the absolute right to allow *anything* to appear. Because this list is routinely unmoderated, he has no legal responsibility for what is written, until and unless someone formally protests to him. If, for example, anyone consider that he was being libelled by a writer here, the offended party would have no legal recourse against the owner, *unless* the offended party objects and legally demands that the material be removed from the on-line archive (where it would remain forever accessible to internet searches). At that point the owner would become responsible for failure to respond. Yes, it could be dangerous to own an unmoderated list and pay no attention to it or to complaints. But we are not there, Mr. Smith is highly unlikely, I think, to take any such legal action. I'm just pointing out that we *do* have a chair, but one whose decision has been to allow pretty much anything to appear here. I'd say that most of the time, it works. Indeed, an elected chair would probably do *almost* the same thing. Whether or not the chair would have intervened in the recent incident (which is somewhat ongoing, though at reduced volume, so to speak), would be a matter at the discretion of the chair. And if the chair did not act, anyone *else* could object. Meetings have been dealing with these problems for centuries, it is well-known how to do it democratically. There are plenty of arguments for allowing the status quo to continue. And arguments for doing otherwise. The fact is that we can do both, if there is sufficient interest. An unmoderated list can feed a moderated list. >However, Robert's Rules are designed for meetings with a defined >agenda, and this listserv isn't really a meeting, nor does it have a >defined agenda. That is not correct. Robert's Rules are designed for meetings, period. Obviously, there is something that brings the people together, some interest, but nothing other than that. One thing is true. If what you want is only "free-wheeling debate", with no resolution or indication of consensus, or almost none, then, of course, this is what you will have. > We could probably impose a bunch of rules on >ourselves to make make RONR more applicable, but it's not clear to me >that the result would be an improvement over the free-wheeling debate >we have currently. If the moderator were to intervene here under unusual circumstances, it would be, I presume, an improvement from the point of view of the moderator. If it were an improvement from the point of view of all those who cared to vote on a resulting appeal, then I'd say that Mr. Kuhlman would have nothing to stand on. It is, in fact, clear to me that making the list moderated, routinely, would severely damage the debate here (unless certain conditions obtain, which are difficult and onerous, probably, with a list of our size.) >There are also a host of practical problems.. Who would serve as >chair? What would be their incentive to run for office? And what >election method would be used to select them? :-) I will point out here that this problem was solved long ago. There are special problems for mailing lists that don't exist in face-to-face meetings; the sock puppet problem is one of them. However, that the list owner is essentially a dictator suggests a solution. It should be understood that my major work is with this very problem. This list is functionally a Free Association, meeting in a place kindly provided by the list owner. The list owner has elected not to function as a chair, though, as I pointed out, under some circumstances he might have a legal responsibility. So we could, *if* we want one -- I haven't seen that we do --, elect a chair. We have no authority to compel the owner to give the chair moderator privileges, but we could certainly ask. The owner would then decide, I presume, whether or not the request was legitimate, and this would include judging whether or not the election process was proper. Now, what would the election process be? Again, this is quite a standard problem. The simplest solution is that any member, at any time, may move that the group elect So-and-So as chair. The person doing this, who should not be So-and-So, would function as chair for the purpose of conducting this election. If a majority of those voting vote Yes, then So-and-So becomes the chair. If not, not; a motion to elect someone else would be in order. But, that's unfair, it might be protested. What if a member doesn't want a chair to be elected? What if a member wants someone else? What if a member thinks we should use some other election method? Robert's Rules provides the obvious answer. The motion to elect I described is an ordinary motion. It is debatable and it is subject to appeal. To close debate and proceed to a vote requires a 2/3 majority, if the temporary chair is following the rules. (Given that the group has not adopted the rules, the chair is not obliged to follow them, but would you not think that the rules sufficiently protect minorities? In any case, I will note that deliberative procedure on the motion to elect A, if considered an election method, satisfies the Condorcet Criterion, and it also will almost certainly choose the Range winner, if those who support Range take steps to insure that Range information is available to the group. But what if a two-thirds majority would prefer to simply elect A? It would be undemocratic to subject the group to tedious debate, given this preference. Robert's Rules are *not* designed, as was stated, for groups following some agenda. It was designed to *allow* groups to function efficiently and democratically, for whatever purpose the group follows. They were designed to disallow extended and useless debate, which could otherwise *prevent* the majority from acting, or at least it would seem so. What takes place on this list is not debate under the meaning of Robert's Rules. It is open discussion, what would under the rules be considered meeting as the Committee of the Whole. A chair can still function under CotW conditions, mostly to prevent abuse and to prove a means of adjourning the committee (not necessary under list conditions, but important in face-to-face meetings) and convening the Assembly. But meeting as the Assembly requires that no debate take place without a motion. A motion could be a proposed action, or it could be a proposed resolution of any kind. (There is a process for avoiding debate on objectionable motions.) The Assembly does not begin debate on a motion until it has been seconded. This single rule could prevent a lot of useless debate! But *discussion* can quite properly begin on something without a second. This would never be allowed in a formal Assembly, unless the rules were waived, or the meeting adjourns to the CotW, or the discussion is transferred to a Committee. I have seen no motion to elect a chair here, only a comment that it could be done. Neither have I seen a motion to adopt Robert's Rules or any other set of rules. This is not debate, this is discussion. You want true debate, it can happen with rules. Not likely without. Discussion, almost by definition, cannot lead to formal decision; individuals remain free to take what they like from it. We could not properly say "The Election Methods list concluded that Method Whacky-Whack was not suitable for use in public elections." If we adopted process, such a statement would become possible. It could be quite useful, in fact. >Elected leaders are sometimes a necessary evil, but they are a poor >substitute for direct democracy within a group of informed individuals >full of enlightened self-interest. That's correct. Robert's Rules firmly establish functional direct democracy. The chair is not a "leader," per se, though sometimes chairs are leaders. If the "leadership" of the chair is controversial, I'd say, this would be a poor choice for chair. A chair should be perceived, by as many members as possible, as fair and unbiased, or, at least, more interested in the fairness and lack of bias of the meeting process than in any personal agenda. There are people like this. >> >Does anyone have experience with Nabble, or know of other reasonable >> >solutions to this problem? It's time we stop pretending the problem >> >doesn't exist. >> >>At this stage, there is a simple solution. I've got the flu today and >>a headache, so I don't have the strength to look at Nabble. But, >>quite simply, the group should have an active moderator with the >>power to put a member who is disruptive to the list, causing harm, >>defined, if necessary, by vote. > >I'm sorry to be so harsh, but "I don't have time to think about your >suggestion, so I'm just going to tell you what I've already decided" >isn't good enough. In fact, you've given me another reason to argue >against moderation. I fail to see that. Remember, a motion has not been entered. We are not debating. If we were debating a motion to adopt Nabble, whatever that is, I'd be well-advised to read about Nabble, and so would, indeed, any list member who cared enough to vote on the motion. This is why it is important to distinguish between discussion and debate. It is harmless to ignore discussion, or, more accurately, one harms only oneself. I did not harm this list or Mr. Kuhlman by my not looking immediately at Nabble, because I found it easier not to at that particular point. (I had a splitting headache, I was coming down with a cold, plus I had looming responsibilities with my children.) But if a motion were under debate, and, especially, if the question were being called, and the motion is going to affect my rights in the future, or the way my name and the fact of my participation here would be used by decisions made under Nabble, then I'd better know. And were a motion under debate, my comments *might* have been ruled out-of-order by the chair and could be striken from the record. The record of debate should be as free as possible of serious irrelevancies. If you think about it, the reasons are obvious. Irrelevancies would make it much more difficult for a member to read the debate and come to conclusions regarding it. It is very, very different from discussion. >On the surface, your comment is inoffensive. Your post is polite, and >well-enough reasoned. You've certainly given no reason for a potential >moderator to reject your post. Absolutely not, as far as I could see, unless the chair considered my remarks irrelevant to the subject of the list, which would be a stretch. > However, by ignoring the proposal at >hand & redirecting to your own agenda, you've engaged in a degree of >slight-of-hand. No intention existed of diverting attention from Nabble. Given that this is discussion, I simply wanted the option of simply electing a chair to be on the table. It is actually the mildest of interventions. (Unless we elect a draconian chair, but presumably we would decide to remove such a person. A chair, indeed, should be fairly strict with debate, to keep it on-topic, perhaps with proper Subject headers, but not with discussion.) > If given the opportunity, I would rank your response >low to medium low. You might find reason to do the same to this reply >of mine. I assert there's value in being able to do that. Great. I wouldn't dare to rate Nabble without investigating it. >If we can agree on that much, then the question becomes "what do we do >with these post ratings? how shall they be aggregated? what impact >should sustained low quality posting have on an individual?" Since >we're a bunch of people who love to argue, would could probably carry >on over those questions indefinitely. For the sake of making progress >on a very important issue that's been neglected for too long, I >propose that the group adopt an existing set of standards. Nabble has >an interesting system established, though there may be others worth >considering. Is that a motion? If so, I would take steps to insure democratic process. This binds no one. This is what I call a Free Association, though without the formal traditions that would guarantee, as far as possible, that it will always stay that way. >>However, where there are a number of choices to be made, Range is >>excellent for gathering information about the state of the >>membership, for the use of the moderator as well as for the members >>should a motion be presented for vote. A Range vote could drastically >>shorten the deliberative time necessary to discover consensus, and >>groups like this should always attempt to reach broad consensus, >>particularly before taking drastic action. > >I agree enough with this sentiment to let it stand without argument >(my concerns about Range don't really come into play in these >conditions). So, let's hear some more arguments so that we can move >towards that consensus! Let's have a motion first. A formal motion. I could construe Mr. Kuhlman's post as being a motion, but given that this list has *no* tradition of presenting motions and debating them, I'll let him confirm or deny it. I would, in fact, request that Mr. Kuhlman repost the text of his motion, without argument, very simply, and give the subject of the thread as MOTION: [brief name for motion]. "MOTION: to adopt Nabble rules" would suffice, and, for convenience, I'd put the URL for the rules in the motion. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info