At 07:50 AM 1/30/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>
>[regarding the adoption of the ORSC civil discourse rules:]
>> a. How does the charter of the ORSC list differ from the IFWP list as you
>> see it? So long as the lists are roughly interchangeable when people post,
>> it would make them completely redundant if they both had the same civil
>> discourse rules.
>
>This remark may seem logical to you, but it seems psychologically/socially
>naive to me. It's like saying that all big city street corners are equal.
>In fact they aren't; different corners belong to different gangs.
Fair enough. I honestly don't see much difference, in practice, between
the ORSC and IFWP lists as they stand. To apply the ORSC rules to IFWP
would make them even more similar. I want to know more about how ORSC
means to run its streetcorner, and to know whether there's an IFWP--maybe
it's defined as everyone willing to say he or she is a member--that could
have its own idea about its respective streetcorner. If people just post
interchangeably, why have two lists and fragment the discussions?
>The IFWP list has never had an agreed charter, but the list has certainly
>always been open (except of course during the peculiar period after 11
>December 1998 when some people were unsubscribed). Everyone has been free
>to come and talk and so a wide spectrum of viewpoints has always
>been represented here.
That's been my impression too--although I'm a little hesitant to say it.
After all, you were the one who took me to task for saying I'd try not to
cross-post by confining my own comments mostly to IFWP, because of that
"peculiar" period!
>The ORSC has always represented (to my understanding) a particular
>viewpoint as to how the Internet should be run and its list has been a
>place where that faction meets to talk. That faction has always been an
>extremely small one. (Please do not interpret this statement as an
>attack on the ORSC or its positions.)
>
>Should the ORSC civil discourse rules be adopted? These require the
>appointment of three all-powerful moderators. Given the wide disparity
>of views represented on this list, and given the rabid dislike that
>some individuals have for each other, it's difficult to see how this
>list could agree upon who the moderators should be. Equally, I don't
>know who could be trusted to act in this role without using it to
>promote their own positions.
Agreed. I do, though, also see a problem when half the messages on the
list are from one particular person, and anything goes in the discourse.
Selective filtering by each listreader is meant to address that, but it
creates fuzz when we're each essentially reading different subsets of the
list depending on whom we filter. Is there any way, architecturally, to do
better for discussion of the issues than what we have now?
>> >I have two questions I'd like to see the group address
>> >and come to consensus on:
>> >a) should this list adopt the ORSC civil discourse rules?
>> >(http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/)
>
>No.
>
>> >b) should we stick one of Ellens grey ribbons on the
>> >mailing list website ?
>
>What mailing list website?
There was a url listed in Richard's first post. I think the list is
mirrored there for those who want to read it with a web browser. Here it
is--<http://lists.ifwp.org>. ...JZ
Jon Zittrain
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
