Opening up Discussion on Hosting Guidelines

[ellisonz]

Aloha Occupy Underground subscribers and friends,

Leopolds Ghost and I have been drafting ideas about how hosting in this group should function (you can find the current drafts at this link: Mic Check: Bulletin Board - Most Recent 2 Versions of Draft hosting guidelines (read at yr leisure). Some further brainstorming/debate is needed! Link to list of prior threads debating this group and some of these topics: List of Previous Threads - I suggest reading the first link and consulting the links at the second link if you want to see more of some of the previous debate on this, including how the Statement of Purpose came about. The Statement of Purpose will of course be subject to further review, but as it is no small thing to get admin to tweak it, I would just ask that we stick to discussion of Hosting Guidelines and not the text of the Statement of Purpose itself. Let's move forward.

Our purpose in this process has been to act as a facilitators, and since I have no desire to host this group and have some experience in the organization of such entities as this group, I will continue to do my best to help build consensus toward something awesome. I have no desire to dictate anything to anybody. I am a strong believer in participatory democracy and in constitutionalism. If anyone thinks I am out of line in any way, or wishes to help in this process by either creating a new set of guidelines/or editing existing proposals. Please speak up, all our welcome, and all help is needed, and especially if you're a good writer, have experience in this sort of organizational project.

I am sure there is a desire to avoid the drama that has happened in some of the other groups. I am also sure there are many different ideas about the details, and in fact, there is probably even some disagreement about if this group needs hosts, and so to open up discussion on this matter I think it is useful to consider the basic questions about how we would like to see this group function and how hosts relate to this mission. If you have any questions, concerns, ideas that are not included in the following attempt to encompass some of the debate, please express them constructively.

1. Does this group need a host? If so, do you think there should be a few hosts or many hosts?

2. Do you think with the idea that the main purpose of hosts is to act as a "sort of justice of peace/vibes watcher figure" or to act as a protector to enforce a "safe haven" at all times?

3. Contingently, do you think hosts should have some autonomy in making decisions, should have some autonomy in making decisions, just a little autonomy, or no autonomy?

4. How do you feel about the ideas of term limits and recalls as a check on host decision making? How long do you think a term should be, how many votes should it take to recall?

5. Would you prefer to elect hosts via open vote or by an anonymous poll (likely at DU2)? Do you think there should be any qualifications in place on voters in host elections?

I would just close out before stepping back and letting people weigh in, by stating that there is no reason to rush this process, and in fact, it's probably productive to drag it out. Moreover, no decisions will be made without the utmost attempt to build democratic consensus and there will be fair and free opportunities to vote on any proposal. I think the general idea is to have this discussion before selecting a host so that there are no issues down the line on the basic question, that at some point, most everyone agreed on the basic constituent issues of this group. Be good to each other.

Mahalo.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Group membership is a vexing issue, given current software limitations.

Here's what I posted with regards to that issue-

Who gets to determine initial group membership?

1. Any registered person on DU?
2. Any current member of the Group?
3. Any current member of the Group before _______?

If the answer is 2. or 3., how does one determine this? At the very least, we would need some programming changes that shows member name and date of subscription/deletion.

Personally, I think 1. is the only workable solution. If the majority agreed on this, then you could vote on something like: "As of {future date}, only members of this Group will determine rules of the Group." And then proceed to issues such has host selection, SoP, etc.

On edit #2. Because this is a meta question, it should be open to all DUers...everyone has a vested interest in determining the starting point of what constitutes a legit definition of group membership. You could narrow it down to FG only, but by keeping it global, I think this question easily passes. However, the fundamental issue of knowing who is a member can only be determined if there is a common reference that shows who is in the Group. So, I still think either the administrators need to program this feature into DU or we have to accept that fact that anyone can vote on any poll that effects the operational aspects of a particular group.

So, based on how DU3 works now, I don't think there's any real option other than allow anyone to vote on any issue that may be put up for vote in a Group thread. I probably wouldn't if it didn't interest me or, if it did and group membership was requested, I could subscribe on the spot.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I think allowing any du member to vote is fine.

If the regular participants here are not the vast majority of those voting the group is likely failed anyway.

Term limits and recall seem like a good idea to avoid abuse, although the promotion of the next most senior to Absolute Ruler was highly problematic on some other forum here recently. I don't know how we avoid that problem with this system.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Really, I see no other practical alternative.

Even if you do want to keep it "members only" on rules/procedures votes...there's no good way to do it. That aside, the key issue in the Feminist's forum is how to get the host to recognize the members demands for a new vote. The lesson from that situation is that there needs to be a clear procedure to replace hosts if the host is being uncooperative or even disruptive to general group harmony and it should probably be something that's globally recognized - part of the DU terms and conditions for hosting groups. OTOH, you can't have a situation where no-confidence votes are demanded every other day.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Under the current draft of the principles that was approved on Occupy du2, the lead host has no more

authority than the co-hosts. While they have more powers granted by the Admin, that doesn't mean that the group wants them to USE those powers.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. See the feminist group.

Shit happens.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. Yeah, it's a problem with the way the system is geared to hosting as private groups

More like blogs with an individual owner, almost.

That's why a lot of effort has been and will be (I hope) put into the guidelines to try and make the hosting system work as tools of a GA process instead.

[Chan790]

25. +1 n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Simple majority vote is not required for Occupy GAs to function well. So I don't think it's an issue

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:24 AM - Edit history (1)

I have been involved in setting up Occupy Neighborhood Assemblies, not that that qualifies me for anything but it means that I have had the chance to learn about this from people with far more experience than I have.

[JNelson6563]

3. I hope it is kept simple

Not a litany of rules, not seriously controversial personalities running the show, no cluttering up the forum with many pinned posts and, lastly, transparent, objective (grown-up) actions from the hosts.

I should think all of this would be easily achievable. Many DU groups are just like that so we know it can be done.

Julie

[Chan790]

4. My answers to ellisonz 5Q?

1.) I think we should have no host. I don't think we need one and I think electing/having leaders is not necessarily in line with the spirit of Occupy. For the next 4.5 questions, I'll assume we're going to have hosts.

1a.) As few as possible. Ideally, zero.

2.) Closer to the first.

3.) Little-or-no autonomy. I think it should be a merely functionary and administrative role.

4.) Neither support or oppose term-limits. I think recalls are likely necessary, but before we can discuss recalls we need to determine methodology for determining who is a voting-member and such methodology needs to be codified.

5. Open vote. (Very strongly that it should be an open vote.)

Observation: I feel undue deference is being given to the DU2 thread and people. Really, it feels like decisions were/are being made there with minimal/zero input from the more-populated DU3 group (edit: Before this group was even formed!!) and foisted on us. I don't really feel that those contents should be given any weight (as in I think they're meaningless) and need be fully re-discussed here. There was no clear notification on DU3 that these major decisions (such as the entirety of the mic-check thread linked above) were being made outside of DU3.

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. It is possible to use polls for consensus. The principles as currently written call for consensus

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:26 AM - Edit history (2)

If we drop that and vote on everything, like Kevin Zeese's group, I would be a bit concerned to say the least.

A lot of groups I've worked with in real life use consensus, and that includes "mainstream"
progressive groups like Occupy Faith. Of course, if everyone jumped off a bridge that does
not mean we should, but I just had a big issue with a group IRL calling themselves Occupy
while wanting to drop the GA structure and not model themselves after Occupy.

In this case we were using Wikipedia as a model because it works well when you ignore
the encyclopedia aspects and replace it with the GA traditions instead, see here for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA

[Old and In the Way]

9. I really tend to agree with point 1.

A divided group that demands a host removal while the other half wants the person to remain is a bad situation. Even if you had ways to get rid of hosts...that process would probably become abused. So maybe just have members police the forum? What do you lose? Pinned messages?

[ellisonz]

21. I think the thought is to set the bar fairly high.

I think a lot of people certainly think having pinned messages, the ability to lock baiting threads, and the likely very rare need to ban a disruptive member are important. I also think that the goal here is to have a system spelled out so down the line there is no turmoil. I think minimalism is the goal.

[Old and In the Way]

28. I wonder if the MIRT team couldn't be tasked with alerts that include an SoP violation?

Add another box that gives the alerter an option to check SoP rather than ToS. Such a flagged post then goes to MIRT and if they agree, the abuser could be banned from the Group. I guess you could still have a leader-less host structure that manages the pinned messages and such...maybe all of the positions just needs to be term limited. The renewals comes up in a fixed timeframe, maybe every 3 or 6 months and if you like the host, just vote to renew...or offer up new hosts to be voted in. It might address the potential problem of having disruptive hosts who have no worries about being thrown out of their position.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. I thought we're trying to have a non-heirarchical structure, not rely on MIRT. jmho n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. Regarding DU2 -- all the work that went into creating this forum came from DU2rs -- if you think

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:29 AM - Edit history (1)

They should have no weight then I will have to go back to them and report back that the people there who were worried that all their work would be ignored and that the people who expressed STRONG RESERVATIONS that the new Occupy Underground group would be used to MARGINALIZE them were correct.

DU2 is effectively a pro-Occupy forum. The Admin's have been very kind in allowing them to stay there and have an "underground" forum for people who weren't comfortable with the site transition, at least for now... Just because there are "more people here" doesn't mean people should shout down those who have contributed the hardest.

[Chan790]

19. No, I think those decisions needed to be made here along with there.

Minimally, it needed to be announced here that those decisions were being made there so that people who do not frequent there could go there and have input. I see a lot coming out of those decisions that directly-conflicts with things that were being said and discussed on DU3 in H&M like the discussions on consensus that were leaning against its' use.

Sorry, I think all of those decisions need to made collectively now after the formation of both and all decisions made on DU2 prior to the formation of this group or made without it having been made clear that they were being made on DU2 must be re-examined and the previous decisions are neither consensus nor even necessarily representative. We (on DU3) represent the vast majority of the participants in this, it's anathema to supposedly-shared ideals for those decisions to have been made by a small minority cadre in non-publicly disclosed conversations.

Edit: Okay that a bit harsh. I toned it down. And yes, I support guttering the DU2 work and starting from scratch.

[ellisonz]

20. To be fair, no decisions beyond the SOP have been made at all...

And that was part and parcel of the Group Proposal, which was approved overwhelmingly and without much objection. I think the goal here is to be inclusive of all thoughts as possible. I would add that they reflect some degree of consideration, and we would do better to discuss the meat rather than pick the bone. Think of it is a working-group.

There is a reason we are having this conversation now, and it's not so there can be a pissing contest. All here want what's best.

[Chan790]

26. I'll be drafting a counter-proposal then.

It may take me a few days (probably under 24 hours), it's a ground-up rewrite rejecting both the premises of host-selection by main host and current electoral model in favor of indirect run-off. (That is, nobody runs against anybody for a host spot...every nominee gets a simple Yes/No vote.) Lead host is chosen by consensus of elected hosts and subject to approval of membership. All other voting rules (who can vote, term limits, removal procedures, vote-holding procedures) will likely remain the same.

Will contain a separate proposal to abandon consensus-model as unworkable for a large forum.

[ellisonz]

27. There is no great rush.

It's more important to get something everybody can live with rather than something fast and easy. I would just perhaps note that perhaps having a run-off vote for hosts and then having them select a lead-host is perhaps even less participatory in that the group itself isn't having the final say, but rather a select group.

I also think we can get pretty close to consensus. Everyone wants a couple basic things: a system that is fair to all members, a system in which hosts serve at the pleasure of members (facilitators), and a system that creates a vibrant and functioning sub-community for the purpose of carrying the message.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. The main host does not select co-hosts under the current draft, the group does

DU3 software requires the lead host to appoint the co-hosts (which is where the procedures come in to specify which co-hosts, if any, the group wants, if they don't want to leave it up to one person.)

The current draft goes further and limits the ability of co-host #2 to appoint co-host #3 and so on, a feudal arrangement that is coded into DU3 which turns hosting into a literal heirarchy.

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. It was pointed out in the H&M thread many times where the work was being done. Occupy uses consensus

I just got done with a real life debate over a pseudo-Occupy about this.

You can't call for no consensus and claim that discussions on consensus were leaning against its use. No consensus means voting, which means voting by the people who wanted to start the new group -- both on du2 and du3 -- not by everyone on DU regardless of their support for Occupy or desire to participate, that would be a suicide pact.

[ohheckyeah]

30. How are they being marginalized if they

have a say here? DU2 is DU2 and DU3 is a new thing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. Do you feel they should, or should not?

DU2 is still part of DU... but the real issue is the folks involved wanted to be part of the new group
and for many of them they are hoping it will be a group they feel comfortable in due to a perceived
"crackdown on dissent" on GD (rightly or wrongly)

The original Mic Check thread very explicitly stated that persons who did not visit DU3 at all (e.g. KoKo, who was very supportive of our efforts) would be counted as a "stand-aside" and explained their vote as such. I.e. all the comments that were tallied in favor of being part of the new group specified that they wished to participate; as such those persons (who are on here as well) are effectively the people that initiated the effort to form the group. To not give them a seat at the table would be sort of like replacing all the Deaniacs after the election.

If this had been a safe haven group as Ohio Joe strongly suggested, then the ten or so folks from the du2 thread would have had to appoint hosts of their choosing (being the persons requesting formation of the new group) off the bat.

[ohheckyeah]

45. Truthfully -

I'm backing out of the discussion and group. I'll drop by to see what's happening occasionally and maybe share what I know is happening in my area.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. But we haven't agreed on anything yet...

[Vincardog]

33. Why can't the DU2 work be presented here and accepted or not by us all? Why would anyone want to

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

keep reinventing things that work?

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. I am concerned because I have done work for a liberal nonprofit where

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 06:47 AM - Edit history (2)

New people (incredibly valuable, skilled, wonderful people who we wouldn't dream of doing without) get involved and vote to start over from scratch on whatever was put in place by the people who just left because "those people aren't here, we are".

If Occupy is being inclusive, shouldn't folks seek to be inclusive of what the du2 folks put forward, since the foilks there wouldn't have agreed to participate and make it happen otherwise?

Ohio Joe's concerns about this were particularly strong in the opposite direction from folks who are saying "no consensus, no hosts, allow everyone on DU to vote on anything having to do with the group".

My understanding of Occupy's approach to the 99% is that Occupy seeks to involve anyone in the 99% who wishes to participate in a shared effort. But those goals have to be shared by the folks who get involved, which requires using consensus where participation (i.e. some agreement on underlying structure) is required to be part of decisions coming out of the GA. (the nonprofit mentioned had to deal with these issues on a legal level -- it's hard to be open to everyone and use simple majority vote.) To use business terminology, you become ripe for hostile takeover, like what's happened to the Party over the past 20 years.

I have reposted the du2 draft and ellisonz's most recent edit suggestions in a Mic Check thread in this forum, at ellisonz's request.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. Ellisonz, can you facilitate the thread I opened up here thats a mirror of the du2 thread?

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:35 AM - Edit history (2)

Because I don't think anyone's replying to it.

I support using this thread to discuss general principles...

but if people just pile into the new forum without responding to mic check threads on the new forum then chances are they haven't pored over the old thread or don't agree with it and want to start from scratch, and it'd be a shame to see us start over from scratch knowing that the du2 folks put a lot of faith in us to try and work out a set of guidelines that would be in keeping of the spirit of what they were hoping for...

Edited to add I didn't mean you when I referenced piling in, EZ I just meant folks who only recently learned about the effort to form this group should take the time to meet with us folks who participated in the du2 thread (for what it's worth) and chat.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. My thoughts on Ellison's questions --

1. I am pretty solidly anti-authoritarian (for a non-leftist, lol) but the structure of DU3 exposes us greatly in the absence of hosts. Already people are just coming in and dropping occupy threads here as a bulletin board without saying hi, and we don't want it to turn into something like the problems Peak Oil Group and other groups were having where any news related to the subject got dropped there without comment and the community of folks replying didn't necessarily agree with the concepts behind the group. (Transit has a serious problem with this on DU too, I tried joining that forum as it is a major interest of mine until I realized that the two most active posters cared about the issue and were opposed to progressive solutions on transit. If DU had a forum on single payer, or public housing, I imagine there'd be a similar problem finding FDR democrats, much less radical populists of the Occupy sort, to populate it with.) The only way to establish a community is to try and have assembly threads or at least mic check threads like we have been doing on du2. We were hoping that would be a model for here. Of course du2 is a special case as it has a large community of self-selected, grandfathered in mods. In leftie circles, this problem is sometimes known as "insistence on absence of process" as a means of creating cliques and social fiefdoms and ignoring dissenting opinions. For instance, no hosts means no pinned threads, which sometimes comes in handy as a tool, and it means other people can come along and propose to host the group and effectively co-opt it from without.

2. The former, but I said my piece on this in the original mic check thread in the discussion with Ohio Joe

3. I support hosts being a small part of the system basically the way Wikipedia operates consensus. Folks who are familiar with how wikipedia consensus works will know what I mean. It's one of the most progressive and non-heirarchical systems I've seen once you cut through the bureucracy that comes with being an encyclopedia that has continual elaboration of systems by academics who are, lets face it, systems lovers. Alternatively you can think of it as occupy du2 with its informal modding.

4. I disagree with the idea of having elections, that makes it seem like hosts are representatively chosen authorities over the rest of us. There should be some happy medium like 75% consensus for choosing a slate of hosts based on willing nominees. As for term limits, I have no opinion but we must be mindful of the fact that people who support a constantly rotating set of co-hosts don't necessarily support it for non-heirarchical, inclusionary reasons. If they envision it as "power sharing" then that implies the hosts are there to "run the joint" and the idea of hosts in a group like this should be to maintain the GA structure, i.e. janitors, not administrators.

5. Anonymous poll on du2. I don't think elections fit in with the spirit of a General Assembly but there are ways to make it work within the spirit of a formal or informal consensus process.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

13. With all due respect, you sound like a teacher

scolding a class for not studying the reading material. I didn't know this had all been set up on DU2 until I happened to read this thread. Your being upset that people are dumping threads here without being fully versed in the requiered reading material sounds a tad authoritarian for someone who says he's anti-authoritarian. I mean, does everyone have to plow through the DU2 manifesto and provide a lengthy essay before posting threads here? Do new threads have to be DU2 certified and must the OP participate in the resulting debate?

I thought the hosts' job would be to keep anti-OWS people from trashing this group. Now it seems like there's an ideological tempest brewing over Occupy DU2 style paranoia.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Not at all. It's simply that we posted numerous links back to the threads on the group formation

proposal. I don't see what's authoritarian about saying that all the work those people did should not be tossed aside because it happened prior to the formation of the group. The purpose of starting an Occupy group on DU was to provide a welcoming home for Occupy supporters who felt that the new GD was much colder towards Occupy since the change-over. Some, not all of these folks are also on du2 but that should not matter. Some folks here seem to be saying that if it happened on du2 it does not matter.

More to the point, the idea behind the group, as stated in the SoP is to follow hosting guidelines that are supportive of the GA system and as it is, with no guidelines and no host, anyone who is an Occupy skeptic is free to join the new group and say "we don't need to listen to THOSE people (the ones who are also on du2) just because they put in 6 weeks of work to form the group" I don't know what you mean by paranoia... folks there have legitimate concerns that if somepony here gets pissed off they will blame "the people over there" and get Admin to shut it down. Occupy is about bringing everyone together around a common process and certain goals in common, if people don't want hosts then there is no need for guidelines, but then you should expect this to be an open forum that is not specifically friendly to Occupy, just a place to post news and announcements.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

17. Well, pardon me for not reading the terms of service

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:28 AM - Edit history (2)

before using the product. I've never read any forum SOP. I thought this would be a place to keep people updated on OWS. I'll leave the GA struggle to you. I have no desire to be involved with that. I'll continue to post and read about OWS. If this group turns into a clique or cult of personality I'll simply quit posting here.

On edit: There has never been a requirement that you participate in OWS GA's to protest with them. I figured it was enough that I wanted to protest with them and risk getting beaten up by the NYPD and was willing to be arrested and spend the night in jail with them. (Which I did. Have you?) If that's not enough for you, that's your problem, not mine.

Here are the pictures I took that day on the Brooklyn Bridge:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2041019&mesg_id=2041019

Here is the paper I was supposed to bring to court. (I had such a good hiding place for it I couldn't find it before I went to court. Now I'm glad I couldn't find it because I now have it as a momento.) :

[Chan790]

22. I wish you'd stay active in this conversation.

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I think you have a great deal to contribute to the formation of this group and insights.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

23. Alright, I'll keep an eye on it.

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I like the idea of using DU2 mods to keep out the riffraff but not to enforce ideological purity.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. The du2 draft guidelines thought to mention about activist credentials

I can't afford to get arrested at the present time. If I wanted to try and compete I probably couldn't I would be revealing too much personal info, including news clippings and so forth about projects I've been marginally involved in, including a major issue involving surveillance on antiwar activists (everything we post here is not just subject to surveillance, it is a permanent public archive of our lives. Not that I think it's a problem to post a photocopy, btw.) Besides which, many regional Occupy's tend to avoid getting confrontation with police and have been criticized for that by folks from NY -- even as they get upset about allegedly pervasive acts of violence by protestors.

Did you do jail solidarity? I don't know if they do that in NY.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

41. No, we just told stories and ate cheese sandwhiches.

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Los Angeles OWS has me beat by a long shot. They didn't torture us while we were their guests.

No need to compete. I just wanted to post my summons.

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. What happened in LA? I didn't hear about this -- sounds awful.

The torture, not the cheese sandwiches.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

43. Protesters sitting on buses for hours with handcuffs

so tight it cut off their circulation. Not being able to use the bathroom. Not being given AIDS medication.

Having gotten away with it last year, I can only imagine what they're going to do this year.

[snooper2]

18. Why don't you grab the one or two mods who are running around on DU2 still

and ask them to be a host here?

They seem to be doing a pretty good job and if it's a lot of the same topics, people, etc., all one happy fit

[UnrepentantLiberal]

24. I like this idea.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

29. This sounds reasonable. I'd like to add a few quick points.

Personally, I haven't yet formed any concrete conclusions with regard to the the SOP, Description, procedures etc that Leopolds Ghost posted yesterday but I do have a few observations and thoughts to offer.

I don't take any offense from the drafting of these articles being done over at DU2. I spent 2+ hours over there last night reading the evolution of the DU3 group proposal and I applaud the amount of initiative, thoughtfulness and effort that went into it. Their work has saved us a lot of sausage making, and their end result looks 'pretty' good IMO.

Also, I'd really like to see as many DU2er's come over as possible. We are ALL DUers. Many of the DU2 holdouts concerns are not only valid, but also held by some at DU3. So with their active input here, we can at least create the Occupy group as a mid ground between the framework and climate that we must work within, and the framework and climate that we'd like to see.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. Twinkles

Also I'd just like to note that while I was active in the editing process, I didn't write more than one or two paragraphs... we can thank ellisonz for most of the writing part, and we pushed it to five threads on the subject even though the consensus of the du2 "working group" (i.e. the ones who were willing to participate if this group was formed) was that it wasn't necessary to get agreement on the nitty gritty details. The discussion Ohio Joe had with Ellisonz on the poll thread was especially helpful, as he expressed deep concens about some of the dramas that might occur in the absence of hosts (for instance, apparently ten or so members can vote in hosts on a host-less forum at any time).

[ohheckyeah]

31. So, is this group already

split between the DU2 people and the DU3 people? Aren't we talking about the group HERE at DU3? I don't mean to be contentious but I don't want to run back and forth between the two forums. There are things I don't like on DU3 but it is the new software and forum the admins have come up with and DU2 is no longer supported by the admins.

I think hosts should be few in number and they should basically be the safe haven keepers. I prefer an anonymous poll. A six month term seems plenty long to me and yes, I believe there should be a system set up for recalls if needed.

[ellisonz]

32. The idea is to try and be...

...a lifeboat for all. I really have gotten over the internecine dispute. So long as DU2 is up and running the admins are de facto supporting it in that it is not being shut down. I think it is best to be inclusive of as many people as possible: to have a consensus. You can read the proposals on DU3 too (I missed the thread the other morning: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1252137 )

Thank you for your comments. Aloha.

[quinnox]

44. my two coppers

1. Yes, definitely need a host in this forum. There are some bozos who would likely come here to disrupt this group otherwise who are very hostile to OWS, no need to name names, they are pretty apparent to most regulars. With a host, these disruptors can be promptly banned from the group.
A few hosts in total to handle the forum seems more than adequate.

I'm going to make the rest simple, I think this whole process is being made way too complicated. The people who proposed this group should be the main host, either Leopold's ghost or ellisonz. That should be a no-brainer IMHO, to give them the hosting duties as the originators of the forum. Not only that, but they should get full authority as the main host, with all powers currently given group hosts on DU.

The term in my opinion should be at least 6 months long. Then an open election can be held, where forum regulars get a vote. Maybe the main host will be re-elected, I don't think there should be a forced stepping down.

[ellisonz]

46. Right now I've basically seeing four proposals...

1.. Rut it like a group with as much democracy as possible and require significant consensus and give hosts less autonomy in host power decision-making.

2. Run it like a regular group with as much democracy as possible but expect less consensus and give hosts a bit more autonomy in host power decision making.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1252137

3. Run it like a regular group but with hosts selected via indirect run-off elections with the hosts voting on the lead host with no consensus model.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1252157#post26

4. Operate like a forum for the most part with no hosts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1252137#post7

This is probably somewhat of a simplification. But I tried to summarize the basic ideas.

There is general agreement in the first three proposals on the necessity for elections, for a time limit on the term, for recall, and for election procedure to be anonymous polling.

don't hurt me

[Joe Shlabotnik]

47. I favour options 1 or 2 at this point.

Personally, after the initial set up is done, I'm not too concerned about hosts overstepping their boundaries, as long as there is term limits, (6 months sound ok), and a recall option.

Once the group is established, I think the most important role for the hosts would be defending the 'safe haven'. It is inevitable, (especially this year) that some anti-occupy Duer's will be disruptive. If a visible consensus vote were to be used for banning purposes, it identifies individual members preferences, and opens them up to attacks elsewhere on DU.

Also, because seeking consensus can be time consuming, I think threads that appear to violate the SoP should be locked in the most efficient manner, which would be by a host. That is not say that a consensus couldn't be sought afterwords, to unlock the questionable thread.

Lastly, I think the pinning of threads containing external links to livestreams, and Major Occupy sites is a good tool, as long as they are updated/edited periodically, and don't get too cluttered. (we can't list Every occupy-related site; keep it simple)

Thats just my 2 cents, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not very savvy when comes to group administration. Generally speaking though, I don't think its possible or practical to try and closely mimic GA procedures, because we have to work within a larger community here on DU.

[ellisonz]

48. Thank you for your two-cents. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. What if hosts enforced SoP by

simple consensus (in the absence of objection from another host)


other hosts would know about it prior to block because hosts
would be required to post a warning in-thread (thus notifying
the group as a whole) and PM other hosts prior to blocking a user


and public group consensus were used to:

Appeal to two other hosts for un-banning.

Such a discussion could happen wiki-style

(thus solving the issue of users disrupting their own appeal)


Just an idea / possible solution for the specific issue you bring up. Might be a good one, no idea if it's the best one.

One concern would be avoiding arbitrary locks/blocks, which is what gives hosts chilling executive authority.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

51. that solution has merit.

It could work, but again I think these types of decisions would have to be done quickly. Like I said I'm no expert at GA procedure, or with the inner workings of groups. Going with your suggesting though, how many hosts should the group have? (less = more authoritarian, but quick results whereas more = better representation, but slower) For instance, 5 hosts could gain a consensus faster, but only IF they respond quick enough to a mic check and weigh in, 9 hosts would would allow for a quicker consensus. I'm assuming in the spirit of expediency that a SOP violation would (must) have something like a 1 hour (or hopefully much less) to reach that consensus.

Part of my original '2 cents' was based upon the notion that we have (say) 5 hosts who are well respected, liked and trusted. But of course even I acknowledge the potential hazard with that. (I don't have these concerns with less contentious subject groups). But our very existence as a group puts targets on our backs. We all know how withering, relentless personal attacks can crush an individual, and there will be withering, relentless attacks trying to break our group too, as the spring and summer roll on to the elections! Having (say 7 or 9 hosts) that were mic checked might be able to respond within a 1/2 hour time limit because there'd be more of them logged in 24 hrs/day. I honestly also don't know how many reliable hosts our group could muster or sustain

But hey, I'm easy going, so lets see what some others can (and should!!!) put forward.

[ellisonz]

52. I think just as a simple matter of communication...

...having 5 hosts is much more manageable than 9. Albeit, some groups have opted to go for the full 20 hosts. I think it's more important to be deliberative in any host action than to be fast.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

53. I'd like to see some more ideas and opinions from other members

You could be right. Personally I'm really not that fussy, and will probably go with the flow. Not to rush things, but with a group (at present) of 167 members, it'd be nice to see some more input. I'd hate to see something decided upon, and then complained about by members who weren't vocal at this stage of fleshing ideas out.

[ellisonz]

54. No doubt.

There is no rush. But I figured I would weigh in on the matter. This thread has been open for 5 days and we've made some progress. There is no rush to make any decision as there seems to be at this point very little disruption. I think all of us take this very seriously as we've seen how this can go wrong in other groups. I frankly would be more than happy if the hosts in this group never had to lock a thread or worse block a member. This is more of a matter of precaution than some sort of existential threat through outrageous trolling.

[ellisonz]

55. Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. I've been meaning to review the latest draft

But this has been a very bad week for me...

I got to get something done by the 1st and I've been putting it off.

[ellisonz]

57. No worries.

All seems peaceful in Occupy Underground.

I'm in no rush - Aloha