Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!werner
From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Committees
Message-ID: <666@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Jun-84 20:09:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.666
Posted: Sat Jun  2 20:09:55 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 08:10:47 EDT
References: <1423@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: Comp. Center, Univ. of Texas at Austin
Lines: 56



Mark's gracious way of commenting on the committee-proposal has removed
my inhibitions to comment on the topic;  any thank you notes to Mark, please
		(-:

I have a horror of committee work, call it bad experience, maybe:
In terms of preferred ways of running things, committees rank a distant
4th after such ways as:

a)  a working anarchy, based on respect for rights, needs, and feelings
	of others.  If people tread others with the respect they desire
	for themselves and are able to overcome both inferiority and
	superiority complex, we'd have it made.

b)  a grass-roots democracy, where everyone gets to vote on a topic
	themselves, or can delegate his vote to another person of
	his choice for a given question, or a topic in general, with
	the ability to withdraw that support and vote at any time.

c)  a benevolent dictator, who can delegate work and decision-making
	until a palace-revolution or popular uprising removes him.
	Maybe he should have the ability to put a question up to a
	popular vote, whenever he fears a riot, no matter which way
	he decides.

d)  and, running a distant fourth, the committees.  Anyone got some
	popular suggestions how committee members are determined and
	how they can avoid spending too much of their time in 
	discussions and justifications of decisions?

Before I'm willing to sign away any voting power (???) I have to some
obscure committee, I'd rather see some improvements to the software
which allows a) and b) to work.  But I do support the creation of
"expert committees", consisting of respected volunteer experts who
will kick around a topic and enlighten the general public with their
conclusions in a brief statement before taking a vote.  That would
certainly be preferable to seeing the net overloaded with more
free-for-all discussions.  Then we elect/appoint/condemn someone to
the ceremonial position of "King of the Net" to whom all petitions
are directed, who either distributes prior accumulated wisdom or
invokes a committe-brainstorming.  If the petitioner doesn't
like the answers, he can still bring up the topic for general
net-reactions or to incite a palace-revolution (no guns, please).

Now to proceed with my witty, but meaningful remarks, do I hear
any "Aye"s to reconfirm Mark as "Emperor of the Net", not to be
bothered with trivial topics, punishment being to have your petitions
acknowledged but otherwise ignored ?


	Werner,
			"voting for the loser absolves me from most
			 responsibility for later screw-ups by the winner,
			 but does not protect me from suffering the damages"