On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 01:54:45 -0500, kest <kest@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>I've taken some stuff I wrote and never got around to posting last time
>we talked about this stuff, and interlaced my repsonse to Siobhan's
>points below in what I think are the main categories:
>
>* Mission and Vision
>
>I agree with that proposed by Axel previously, with a 'hierarchy'
>addition by The Exiled:
>"Convergence is the annual party put on by the denizens of the
>alt.gothic hierarchy for the denizens of the alt.gothic hierarchy AND
>ALL THEIR FRIENDS"
>
>
>* Prebid/Voting processes
>
>Last time we discussed, people seemed to think the current voting and
>bid process is mostly ok with perhaps some better voter education and
>some slightly tighter rules about having a.g. folks chairing or heavily
>involved in the committee.
That analysis is fundamentally flawed.
You cannot program good behaviour.
No system of rules is immune to manipulation, gaming & hacking. Add
more rules, tweak the system, you just force the people trying to take
advantage of the system to be sneakier.
As long as Convergence is an attractive property, which it will be as
long as there's a goth scene, there will be people wanting to exploit
it for their own purposes.
The best way to avoid hacking is to have everything out in the open.
Secondly, and this is a really big piece for change - the current
processl is that the Cabal make sure the bid meets minimal criteria as
to whether the bid is coherent & vaguely plausible and it's up to the
voters to look at the bids in depth & decide.
>> 1. The mail-in registration. Originally intended to allow people from
>> the newsgroup who had never been to a Convergence a vote. Final
>> result; Voter registraion drives by bidding committees.
>Voter registration drives are obviously bad,
No it wasn't - mail in registration was a good tweak at the time to
accomodate people who wanted a voice but weren't in the database.
The problem is that once in place, it was corrupted.
'Cos that's the what happens.
> but it would be nice to
>still be able to give votes to a.g.ers who haven't yet been able to make
>it to convergence. Maybe an existing voter could sponsor 1 or 2 newbies
>each year? Like invite codes?
& the same potential flaw exists - if I have a bunch of friends on
the system & can get their invite codes then I can take over the vote.
>> 2. Committees. we restrict who can put in a bid? If so
>> what restrictions make sense?
>
>I think they can't just throw in a newsgroup representative as an
>afterthought. A percentage of the committee rule is one option. (And
>they must be active contributers. Not 'oh, I know where it is and might
>have posted an ad for my club night there once.')
How to we regulate that?
What counts as enough people?
What counts as active participation in the bid?
& this approach means not just active contributers to the ng, also
active contributers to the committee.
To my mind, the only way that rule can work is if the Cabal are
comfortable actively rejecting bids.
Which to my mind really turns up the heat on us, makes us far more
Sooper Speshul 733T than we should be & (and this is the really evil
bit) requires WORK!
>> 3. Voters. Who can vote?
>I think the feeling last time was voting was mostly ok, but I think we
>should make an effort to educate people on what this thing's all about.
>We should have resources available from altgothic.com about the
>newsgroup, the history of convergence, advice about what to look for in
>a bid proposal, etc.
Got time to rebuild the website?
Want to write the Convergence FAQ?
> And there should be some sort of test. Maybe you
> have to read the mission statement above and click 'I agree' like a ToS.
Right - 'cos everyone reads those things before clicking 'I Agree'.
My favourite in that regard - the Apple updater for Windows just
started 'updating' Windows users machines with the latest update to
Safari (i.e. installing it for the first time). The EULA still
specified that the computer has to be an Apple.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/27/apple_updates_safari_eula/
> And on
>the other side I think public newsgroup voting would just be...messy.
We did it before.
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.gothic/browse_frm/thread/81e97c350b1d0195/9078d92bb0081065?hl=en&lnk=st&q=net+goth+95+group%3Aalt.gothic#9078d92bb0081065
& I'd rather have the mess in public up-front rather than the current
state of affairs.
Plus, if by this point we don't have as much community cohesion as
a.g. had in 1994, what's the point?
Hell, I think Lady B had the right approach back in '96
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.gothic/browse_frm/thread/9484aeeece05f65c/039faf054f62db18?hl=en&lnk=st&q=alt.gothic+convergence+vote+1994#039faf054f62db18
: in the fall, those wi****ng to do the summer's Convergence
: raise their virtual hands & say so. If more than one city offers to take
: it on, then outlines should be presented & discussion entertained
: (History shows that a decision *will* be reached, even if it comes about
: by someone simply saying "Time's running out. We're doing it & that's
: that.").
>* Committee and Convergence Presentation
>I think we should probably have a few more rules ("guidelines"?) for
>actually putting the thing on.
As previously - rules are made to be manipulated.
The biggest problem with last years vote process is that we developed
the rules on a 'if we didn't say it, don't do it' model, but our
culture normally uses an 'if it isn't forbidden, it's permissible'
model.
So, you always have to write more rules.
Which is work.
>* Addenda
>
>MetaConvergence decisionmaking, it has been agreed, all takes place here
>on alt.gothic. This should be...codified somewhere.
altgothic.com
>> 4. The C*b*l itself.
>I don't care now, because you guys all totally rock,
:-)
> but being a good
>American I don't believe in creating any government without also
>creating a sanctioned way to overthrow it. Maybe we give the populace
>of alt.gothic the ability to call for current Cabal members to step down
>if we feel it necessary? I'm *really* not sure on this one.
I think that exists - afte we all we do this for the love, not the
money. Eventually we get burned out & stop responding to e-mails &
then someone new steps up.
If any of us wereto need 'firing', you could come to our house & punch
us on the nose.
Which goes back to my main point that this works by community not
rules. Which seems to be a fundamentally unamerican way to think about
governance.
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
<axel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
