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: 56Mark'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"