Hi David, Jonathan and Squad
On 2 Jan 99, at 19:56, David Buchanan wrote:
> I'd like to suggest just one change in the discussion rules. Rule number
> one is the only "intellectual" requirement, all the others are about
> conduct. The change I propose is to simply strike "either or" from the
> sentence. I think its not too much to ask members to have read BOTH books.
> Its only fair to those members who take Pirsig seriously. (Hope this
> doesn't come off as snobby)
It's not snobby at all. It would be nice if all members had read both books by
Pirsig and a whole bunch of other related books, but what I've tried to do with the
Charter and Rules is to lay out a bare minimum in terms of requirements and
behaviour. As far as I can see both the Charter and the Rules will have little effect
on most members of the Squad as most members are reasonable and intelligent
people and wish to conduct a general debate on the MoQ in a reasonable and
intelligent fashion. It's quite probably the case that most Squad members have
read both books but it is not necessary to have read ZAMM in order to discuss
the MoQ which is laid out in Lila. What I should have put in rule 1 is:
1) As a minimum requirement for joining the MOQ_DISCUSS mailing list
members must have read Lila by Robert M. Pirsig.
and let the Charter show that having read ZAMM would also be useful but not
strictly necessary. I think that reading ZAMM is extremely worthwhile and for
members to discuss aspects of the book, as they are entitled to do in this forum,
it's a necessary requirement but not in the overall context of discussing the MoQ.
In either case the only way we can reasonably ascertain whether a member has
read either book is from the posts that they submit.
Thanks for the input David. Much appreciated.
On 3 Jan 99, at 10:42, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> I'm rather ambivalent about this whole charter business. The Lila Squad
> never had one till now.
And until recently I would have agreed that we didn't need one. But I think that
this situation has changed.
> If we want introduce a formal charter or constitution, we need to answer the
> following:-
>
> 1. Why do we need a charter - what problems does it solve?
It depends what you mean by need. As more people find the Lila Squad site and
wish to join the mailing list it is useful to initially provide for some boundaries for
participation within the list. The list exists to discuss the MoQ and other aspects
of Pirsig's work and writings. This should be broad enough for most people who
wish to participate, if not then there exist other lists and groups where subjects
other than the MoQ can be discussed.
> 2. Who does the Charter BELONG to, and who calls it into being?
The charter belongs to the MOQ_DISCUSS mailing list which isn't a WHO but a
WHAT. It has been called into being by the Steering Committee - which is not
some mysterious cabal (as at least one member seems to imply) but a bunch of
people who provide and maintain the site and facilities which enable discourse on
the MoQ.
> 3. What is the EXPLICIT mechanism (e.g. voting requirements) to amend the
> charter?
There isn't one as yet. Should there be? Why the need for draconian formalism.
> This said, I AM in favour of occasionally posting some group
> "netiquette" guidelines, which I believe was Bodvar's original intent.
> Some of the clauses of the proposed charter could serve this purpose. I
> have a couple of specific comments below.
Bodvar's post SHOULD have been all that was necessary - but those that chose
to ignore it did so and as no "offical" rules were in place there was no practical or
fair means of insistence upon adherence to any rules. The Charter and Rules
CAN be ignored but it is now apparent that persistent abuse is neither
appreciated or acceptable. The final Charter and Rules will be on the web page of
the site where people will obtain information on how to join. If the rules aren't
acceptable then people should refrain from joining.
> Is the server currently open to accept mail from non-subscribers? I
> suspect it is, because I see members occasionally posting from an
> alternate email address.
> This is a potential vulnerability which we may need to close.
This is what I'm engaged in at the moment. 'Open' refers to subscribing and
unsubscribing to the list. Member or potential members can directly subscribe or
unsubscribe themselves but not others.
> >The MOQ_DISCUSS mailing list is currently an unmoderated mailing list.
> >Members should observe the Rules of the list in order that discussions
> > can be conducted in in a civilized and reasonably courteous manner.
> DEFINITELY, but this is simple netiquette (applies with or without a
> charter).
I agree that it should be simple netiquette but there have been abuses. Netiquette
relies on good will, self-discipline and self-control. When that fails the Charter and
Rules are there as a reminder of what is required. As far as I can see the Charter
and Rules are no more authoritarian than netiquette. Spamming and various other
forms of abuse in the Newsgroups SHOULD have been avoided by netiquette but
it failed. The newsgroups now (IMO) are a shadow of their former self.
> > Members of MOQ_DISCUSS are free to initiate a new discussion or topic
> > by posting a message announcing the new topic or with a Subject line
> > identifying the new topic.
> >
> See note below on cross-referencing...
>
> >Members of MOQ_DISCUSS are not required to participate....
>
> >If it becomes necessary to remove a member ...
>
>
> I suggest removing this clause, especially because no disciplinary
> procedure has been fully defined. I think the threat of expulsion is best left
> implicit for now.
If it's not made explicit now then how is it justified later on?
> > The Charter and Rules of MOQ_DISCUSS are subject to addition or
> > modification under the guidance of the list administrator. Any additions or
> > modifications will be posted to the list with reasons given.
>
> This is inadequate for a formal charter. You need to define the exact
> rules, voting procedure or whatever. Otherwise, it isn't a real charter
> (which suits me fine).
It's a real charter just not as formal as it could be. This is deliberate. It's being put
in place as a means to curb excesses, not to stifle discussion and exploration.
> > MOQ_DISCUSS RULES
> > 1) All members must have read ...
> > 2) All topics and discussions must be relevant ...
> > 3) Currently, each member should post no more than one ...
> > 4) Members should reproduce only the relevant parts...
> > 5) Contributors should reproduce the Subject line of the
> > thread/discussion towhich they are replying. The MOQ_DISCUSS mailing list archive at:
> > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > has the option to group posts by Subject. Reproducing the subject line
> > makes it easier to find and follow archived posts by Subject.
>
>
> It would be nice if we could formalize a method of cross-referencing
> posts so that retrieval is just a click away. This becomes important
> when people create new threads combining several old ones.
This is beyond our scope at the moment I think - assuming I am interpreting you
comment correctly. Magnus has produced a Java based search mechanism for
old posts from the Lila Squad and some of the MOQ_DISCUSS posts. For what
you suggest I would think that a reasonably sophisticated database engine and
interface would be necessary but I could be wrong. If anyone on the list has the
knowledge, time, energy and motivation to investigate and/or implement this then
I would be glad to hear from them as, I imagine, would the rest of the committee.
> > 6) Where possible, posts should be restricted to plain text ...
> > 7) Posts may not contain attachments ..., gifs or other documents except by....
> > 8) Members should refrain from swearing, using offensive language ...
>
> Let me close by restating the case for some simple guidelines instead of a
> formal charter. The last week or so has shown that the group responded
> very well (without exception) to Bodvar's call for order.
If you look at the posts from the time of Bodvar's original rules post then it
becomes plain that those that observe reasonable posting continued to observe it
and those that didn't didn't (!!!??!!). As I have written above I don't want the Charter
and Rules to be too formal and rigid as that may lead to an unwillingness to
participate. Rules in this context are a guide with a bit of bite. They are not laws
or absolutes but reasonable guidelines. If it gets to the point that we need
absolute rules to govern everyone's behaviour is there any point in continuing. I
prefer a more moderate approach instead of total order or total chaos. A balanced
mix of order and chaos would be pleasant.
Thanks for the comments and criticism Jonathan. They are greatly appreciated.
Horse
***********************************************************************
"Prejudice is the greatest labour saving device known to man,
it enables one to form an opinion without having to go to
the trouble of checking the facts."
Quote from Stephen Fry - Source Unknown
(Could be Oscar Wilde ??)
************************************************************************
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:48 BST