Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05)/Pt. III

This is a continuation of AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05) Pt II and AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

[15:45]  I'm not a larouchite... [15:45]  where is all this synarchy from? [15:45]  lol [15:45] Synarchy is not his word, he just coopted it later on. [15:45]  Gotta love the LaRouche people. [15:45]  certainly not the mexican kind? [15:45]  I've had fun with them on the Chip Berlet article. [15:46] It is an ancient form of government of bodies that are ruled by a type of "committee of the whole". [15:46]  yes, I know [15:46]  horrible stuff [15:46]  ;) [15:46] So it is not really a committee but the whole body ruling itself. [15:46]  its related to corporatism [15:46]  its horrid, trust me ;) [15:46] Either you have a group that rules by consensus or you delegate, a synarchy is a consensus type of body. [15:47] Don't confuse the history with the structure. [15:47]  the majority pf people are wrong [15:47]  I trust merit [15:47]  ;) [15:48]  concensus is always good tho [15:48] * Sam_Spade has quit IRC (Connection timed out) [15:48]  I liked how you were voted in on a concensus, alex [15:48] <Wally|AMAFK> Majority of meritous people are usually wrong, too. [15:48] <Sam_Spadeaway> of course not, wally [15:48] <Sam_Spadeaway> think about it [15:48] <Sam_Spadeaway> success is correct [15:48] I think someone did vote for Ed, though, and he is now having all the fun. [15:48] <Sam_Spadeaway> if they were wrong, they'd fail [15:49] <Wally|AMAFK> Sam, quite frankly, you'll never quite convince me of all this anti-democratic claptrap. [15:49] <Sam_Spadeaway> then forget it [15:49] <Wally|AMAFK> It's not a question of intelligence; government is a question of judgement. [15:49] <Sam_Spadeaway> and hear my psychology [15:49] <Wally|AMAFK> And I firmly believe that the vast majority of people share an effective level of judgement. [15:49] <Sam_Spadeaway> members are doing nothing [15:49] I don't think we are talking about a government here. [15:49] <Wally|AMAFK> It's not productive. [15:49] <Sam_Spadeaway> they need motivation [15:49] <Wally|AMAFK> You have no other workable solution. [15:49] <Wally|AMAFK> You're just sniping at this one. [15:49] <Wally|AMAFK> And titles won't do it, Sam. [15:50] Have any of you ever served on association committee? [15:50] <Sam_Spadeaway> putting you on a commitee won't motiovate them [15:50] <Wally|AMAFK> On Wikipedia or in general? [15:50] It is not "government". [15:50] It is just "organizational". [15:50] <Wally|AMAFK> I'm not looking for a job, Sam. I'm looking for a solution. [15:50] <Wally|AMAFK> Semantics, Alex. [15:50] Who sends out the notices, who brings the cookies to the next meeting. [15:50] It is not semantics. [15:50] <Wally|AMAFK> In the end it is. [15:51] Governments have armies and budgets. [15:51] We have neither. [15:51] <Wally|AMAFK> That is not the definition of a government. [15:51] <Wally|AMAFK> A government is an organization, derived from its members, that acts on their behalf. [15:51] <Sam_Spadeaway> what is the benefit for me to be a member of the AMA? [15:51] <Sam_Spadeaway> how does it help me, or others? [15:51] We are just a bunch of folk who are trying to make Wikipedia a better place, by making the officious Dispute Resolution process more humane. [15:51] <Sam_Spadeaway> how does it help clients find me? [15:52] <Metasquares> How it helps others is for you to decide. [15:52] <Wally|AMAFK> I don't care how it helps you. It helps others by the fact that you assist them when they need it. [15:52] They know you are a member. [15:52] <Sam_Spadeaway> I am glad to help others [15:52] <Wally|AMAFK> We are here to help others, not ourselves. [15:52] <Sam_Spadeaway> but why do I need the AMA, or a comitee? [15:52] <Sam_Spadeaway> where is the benefit? [15:52] <Wally|AMAFK> I don't know. Quite frankly, I don't care. [15:52] <Sam_Spadeaway> I have noticed [15:52] <Wally|AMAFK> The benefit is to people who are not AMA members. [15:52] <Wally|AMAFK> We're not here to benefit ourselves. [15:52] <Metasquares> The AMA is provided for the others' benefit, not members' [15:52] <Sam_Spadeaway> thats whats wrong w comitees [15:52] <Wally|AMAFK> This is altruism, pure and simple. [15:53] <Metasquares> (Wally is always about 3 seconds ahead of me :)) [15:53] <Wally|AMAFK> lol [15:53] Because there are people who want to help, because we need to learn more about Dispute Resolution, because we can share our experiences and discuss them together, because we can have input when changes are made. [15:53] <Wally|AMAFK> I'm like a mutant. ;) [15:54] Being a member of the AMA should have a benefit. It should be a place that advocates can ask questions, can confer with other advocates, can develop criticisms of the system as it exists. [15:54] <Sam_Spadeaway> I agree [15:54] <Sam_Spadeaway> and I don;'t see that happening [15:54] It should not just be a clearinghouse to let members know about us. That is just the first step. [15:54] <Sam_Spadeaway> I see a comitee forming [15:55] <Sam_Spadeaway> and a handful of inactive members making rules for the active remainder [15:55] <Wally|AMAFK> Poppycock. [15:55] <Wally|AMAFK> It'd hardly be a handful of inactive members. [15:55] <Metasquares> If the seats on the committee are constantly being cycled, as was proposed, the inactive members would quickly be replaced by more active ones [15:55] <Sam_Spadeaway> who have you adviocated lately? [15:55] Yes, sam it is not happening, you are like those "Critical Legal Studies" philosophers, they find fault with everything, but have no positive suggestions for change. [15:55] <Wally|AMAFK> I was working on the Ray Foster/Dcreemer case. [15:55] <Wally|AMAFK> And I've just offered assistance to Exploding Boy. [15:55] <Wally|AMAFK> Why - is that the measure of my input? [15:56] <Sam_Spadeaway> yes [15:56] <Sam_Spadeaway> it is [15:56] <Sam_Spadeaway> I have an idea [15:56] I think you are wrong sam. [15:56] <Wally|AMAFK> Then you, sir, need a lesson in discourse. [15:56] <Sam_Spadeaway> I don't want to be in a comitee [15:56] Someone may be a great advocate and not be advocating. [15:56] <Sam_Spadeaway> but I will simply refrain from conflict w it [15:56] <Metasquares> No one is forcing you into the committee, Sam [15:56] You don't have to run for any position you don't want to sam, but if you are going to be an AMA member don't you think you should contribute something to the AMA? [15:56] <Sam_Spadeaway> you all can do what you intend to do [15:57] <Wally|AMAFK> lol Meta, I was about to say the same thing. [15:57] <Sam_Spadeaway> and we can judge it from the results [15:57] <Wally|AMAFK> You beat me. :P [15:57] <Metasquares> This time I beat you to it :) [15:57] I have to pay dues to the American Bar Association and the NY State Bar Association, I can't tell them what to do, and they don't tell me who my clients are. [15:57] <Sam_Spadeaway> as of today, I am an inactive meber of the AMA [15:57] <Sam_Spadeaway> I will continue to advocate for members, of course [15:57] <Wally|AMAFK> No one's asking for that, Sam. [15:57] But I am happy to pay it, because they do valuable advocacy work and have a lot of research that helps my practice. [15:57] <Wally|AMAFK> Quite frankly no one wants that. [15:58] <Wally|AMAFK> We want your help and input. [15:58] <Wally|AMAFK> And if you're advocating, you're active. :P [15:58] <Sam_Spadeaway> I just intend to withdraw from involvement in your beurocracy production [15:58] I think that the AMA is like these professional organizations, all you have to do is be a lawyer in good standing to join, you don't need to tell them how many clients you have. [15:58] <Wally|AMAFK> Not for nothing, we have not even offered this to our members yet. [15:58] <Sam_Spadeaway> I am counter concensus [15:58] OR even if you have clients. [15:58] <Wally|AMAFK> We're not here to decide. [15:59] <Wally|AMAFK> And you don't have to leave because of it; I haven't left the US just because a Republican runs it. [15:59] <Metasquares> The committee is not a governing body; there isn't any beauracracy involved because we're not making critical decisions [15:59] <Sam_Spadeaway> ok, well my point is I don't want to be a killjoy [15:59] <Wally|AMAFK> You're not; you're a sounding board. [15:59] <Sam_Spadeaway> a buzzkill, party pooper, etc... [15:59] <Metasquares> (I shouldn't say we, I have no ambition for running for the committee) [15:59] <Wally|AMAFK> Which any good democratic system needs. [15:59] <Sam_Spadeaway> I oppose democracy [15:59] <Sam_Spadeaway> vigorouslt [15:59] <Wally|AMAFK> Fine. [15:59] <Sam_Spadeaway> *vigorously [15:59] <Wally|AMAFK> Then run for the committee. [15:59] <Wally|AMAFK> I'll nominate you myself. [15:59] OK, so far Wally has an idea for a commmitee and as far as I can tell no one wants to be on it!?!@ [16:00] <Sam_Spadeaway> also beurocracy [16:00] <Wally|AMAFK> I am willing to stand. [16:00] I can nomminate you Wally. [16:00] <Metasquares> Would you like me to join it? I'm one of those fairly inactive members that Sam was concerned about :) [16:00] <Wally|AMAFK> Perhaps we should get it approved by our members first? [16:00] <Wally|AMAFK> We're on step 12. We need to be on step 4. [16:00] Look, as I said before, what we need is some mechanism that gets people involved. [16:00] <Sam_Spadeaway> I think they need to know what you are planning [16:01] <Wally|AMAFK> Exactly. [16:01] <Metasquares> Yes, we should definitely get a vote on whether the committee will be formed at all [16:01] <Wally|AMAFK> I am typing up a proposal for the committee. [16:01] <Sam_Spadeaway> be careful what you present [16:01] <Wally|AMAFK> I would be happy to supply everyone here with an advance copy. [16:01] We are certainly only going to put up suggestions. Wally already tabled a motion for approval of anything we decide here that is going to take time to get the members to object. [16:01] <Sam_Spadeaway> I would be more able to support you in pieces than in whole [16:01] If they want to. [16:02] <Sam_Spadeaway> anyways, I off [16:02] <Sam_Spadeaway> *I'm [16:02] <Metasquares> Alright, bye [16:02] You can discuss it here first Wally, or put it on the meeting list. [16:02] <Wally|AMAFK> Later Sam. [16:02] <Sam_Spadeaway> guten nacht [16:02] * Sam_Spadeaway has quit IRC [16:02] <Wally|AMAFK> I was going to type it up. [16:02] Good bye sam, thatnks for your input. [16:02] <Wally|AMAFK> I'm actually in the process of doing so. [16:04] Well, since it is already a two hour meeting, maybe you should put it on the suggested topics page. [16:04] Since we have not discussed the actual text. [16:05] <Wally|AMAFK> That's what I was going to do. [16:05] <Wally|AMAFK> Although I wonder if it might not be put someplace with a little more profile? [16:05] <Wally|AMAFK> Also, might I collect e-mails so as to provide you two with said advanced copies? [16:05] Perhaps on that page and I will put a link from the general AMA page. [16:07] <Wally|AMAFK> I would like to see if we can't come to a consensus on the Coordinator's place before we adjourn. [16:07] AMA Meeting (suggested topics). That is where you should post it. [16:08] So Wally, your opinion is have the Steering Committee's elected members elect their Coordinator. [16:09] My suggestion is to have the member who receives the most votes from the membership to become the Coordinator. [16:09] Meta, do you have a third suggestion? [16:10] <Metasquares> I agree with your suggestion [16:10] <Wally|AMAFK> I suppose this assumes that we use approval voting? [16:11] Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "approval" voting? [16:11] <Wally|AMAFK> Same system used for arbitrators. [16:11] <Metasquares> I think he means the "Approve/Disapprove" type of voting for most Wikipedia issues [16:11] <Wally|AMAFK> The vote is as to whether a candidate is acceptable rather than as to whether they are endorsed by the voter. [16:12] We can also just have a secret ballot; if we are going to have one election it should be secret. [16:12] <Wally|AMAFK> Well naturally. [16:12] We discussed this at length last time. [16:12] <Wally|AMAFK> Approval voting doesn't preclude secret ballot. [16:12] <Wally|AMAFK> The system of voting is just very important. [16:13] <Wally|AMAFK> If we do first-past-the-post, i.e. one man, one vote, then we have people elected by bare pluralities. [16:13] <Wally|AMAFK> Plus that would not be efficient for our system. [16:13] <Metasquares> If you do an approval voting on every nominee, you'll end up with much the same system of voting as allowing someone to choose which nominee they want, except that one person can vote for multiple candidates [16:13] <Wally|AMAFK> We could do IRV, instant runoff. [16:14] How would we get the top position for Coordinator in the approval/disapprove system? [16:14] <Wally|AMAFK> Did you guys vote for arbitrator? [16:14] <Wally|AMAFK> Approval would be exactly the same way. [16:14] <Wally|AMAFK> In our case, rather. [16:14] Well since we only have 30 members I would rather we make sure that we get everyone to vote, if possible. [16:14] <Wally|AMAFK> So we have people running concurrently for seats on the board and as Coordinator? [16:14] That is a minimal way to keep people involved. [16:15] <Metasquares> It would hardly be an election if we didn't :) [16:15] No, my suggestion is that the person with the highest number of votes would become the new Coordinator. [16:15] <Wally|AMAFK> But I mean by concurrently seperately but simultaneously? [16:15] <Wally|AMAFK> But that depends upon how we vote. [16:15] That is showing they have the most support of the members. [16:15] So let us say there are three candidates, everyone would get two votes, or something like that. [16:16] <Metasquares> Oh, you're referring to the positibility of overlap between the coordinator and the committee [16:16] <Wally|AMAFK> If we vote by approval, I would agree to that. [16:16] <Wally|AMAFK> With the caveat that the Coordinator would remain responsible to the board. [16:16] <Metasquares> I would like an approval vote as well [16:16] <Wally|AMAFK> We could also do it another way, too. [16:16] <Wally|AMAFK> Have a seperate Coordinator, who has a nonvoting eighth seat, and a Convenor of the committee itself. [16:17] <Wally|AMAFK> Who takes votes, recommendations, etc. and acts as a right-hand man to the Coordinator. [16:17] <Wally|AMAFK> That way we have someone responsible to the committee, but the Coordinator is removed from that. [16:19] You know Wally, we are not voting for a "Board". We have no bylaws that state what a "Board" is. We are just putting together a "Members Steering Committee". [16:19] <Wally|AMAFK> Plus the Coordinator has an assistant. [16:19] This is the first I have heard of a "board". [16:19] <Wally|AMAFK> I use the term synonymously. [16:19] <Wally|AMAFK> Plus, 'committee' is an irritating word to keep typing. [16:19] We can have the outgoing Coordinator helping the new Coordinator. I just hope there are people willing to run for these new posts. [16:20] I think we need a name that is accurate. [16:20] <Wally|AMAFK> I agree. [16:20] <Wally|AMAFK> But our discussions here are somewhat less formal. [16:20] How about AMA Working Group. [16:20] <Wally|AMAFK> I was going to just call it the Committee. [16:20] That does not have connotations of anyone with power, but moreover responsibility. [16:21] So essentially the proposal is to change the Coordinator from being elected directly to being elected with several Working Group members who make decisions about Coordination together. [16:21] <Wally|AMAFK> I think we needn't be so worried about connotation. [16:22] <Wally|AMAFK> Well, we have on the table two compromise proposals. [16:22] Well, I don't think we should call it a board. Wikipedia already has one board too many. [16:22] <Wally|AMAFK> One, to elect the Coordinator with the group members based upon which member has the highest approval (at which point they'll be given a chance to accept or decline). [16:22] I am not adverse to writing up my version Wally and posting it with your version. [16:22] <Wally|AMAFK> Two, to elect the Coordinator seperately and to elect a deputy Convenor of the Working Group from its ranks who is responsible to that group. [16:23] <Wally|AMAFK> Well, of these two, which do you both prefer? [16:23] I don't agree that whomever is elected can decline. If they run they must be wiling to accept the position if elected. [16:23] <Metasquares> Yes, running implies acceptance [16:23] <Wally|AMAFK> Then that may be a thing. If they did it would go on to the next person on the list. [16:24] This is also the first I have heard about a "deputy Convenor". [16:24] <Wally|AMAFK> That was just a what-if concern I had about your system. [16:24] <Wally|AMAFK> I mentioned it several times before. [16:24] <Wally|AMAFK> That was my second compromise proposal. [16:24] Certainly the commmitee can have a Chair that is different from the Coordinator. [16:24] <Wally|AMAFK> [16:16] <Wally|AMAFK> We could also do it another way, too. [16:24] <Wally|AMAFK> [16:16] <Wally|AMAFK> Have a seperate Coordinator, who has a nonvoting eighth seat, and a Convenor of the committee itself. [16:24] <Wally|AMAFK> [16:17] <Wally|AMAFK> Who takes votes, recommendations, etc. and acts as a right-hand man to the Coordinator. [16:24] <Wally|AMAFK> [16:17] <Wally|AMAFK> That way we have someone responsible to the committee, but the Coordinator is removed from that. [16:24] The Chair of an organization is not the "right hand" of the coordinator. [16:25] <Wally|AMAFK> We can make it whatever we want, frankly. [16:25] <Wally|AMAFK> And I was speaking, again, informally. [16:25] The deliberative body is different from the officers of the organization. Anyone who has studied these kinds of entities knows the difference is practical, not theoretical. [16:25] <Wally|AMAFK> And part of it was, specifically, as a deputy to the Coordinator. [16:25] <Wally|AMAFK> Alex, you're splitting hairs and I find it irritating. [16:25] <Wally|AMAFK> The Vice-President of the United States functions the same way. [16:25] I don't think so. These are key structural issues. [16:25] <Wally|AMAFK> Save that he is not derived from the organization. [16:26] But the VP of the US is not elected by the Senate. [16:26] <Wally|AMAFK> As I just noted. [16:26] <Metasquares> (Beaten to the punch again :)) [16:26] Why do you use governments as your example, we are a voluntary association, they are not the same things. [16:26] <Wally|AMAFK> But in the absence of "parties", there's no reason the Convenor could not function as a deputy. [16:27] <Wally|AMAFK> Do you have an objection to the practical application of the suggestion? [16:27] I think we need to discuss bylaws. If you want to just put together a committee, they can elect whomever they like to run their meetings, or they can have informal meetings. [16:27] <Wally|AMAFK> I know what I want - what I'm not clear about is what you want. [16:27] <Metasquares> The entire idea behind the balance of power in a government is to prevent one person from attaining too much power. If there is no power being wielded by the committee, then the two groups don't have to be disjoint [16:27] We already have a consensus from the membership for a Coordinator. All we need is a body to work with him or her, not all kinds of rules to make their lives more complex and complicate. [16:28] That is why I thought the Coordinator should be elected directly. We, as a group, already decided to do that, [16:28] <Wally|AMAFK> My only concern is that the body should have someone responsible to it. [16:28] <Wally|AMAFK> So that it carries some actual weight. [16:29] now we are just adding a new element, a body to go along with the Coordination, not to change that position. [16:29] <Wally|AMAFK> Hence the idea of a chair as a responsible deputy. [16:29] <Wally|AMAFK> And a body does, indeed, change the position. [16:30] <Wally|AMAFK> Hopefully it opens up the operations to discourse. [16:30] They are being elected, that is where they get their responsibility from. They can elect someone to represent them or run meetings, but it should not be a whole hierarchy. [16:30] <Wally|AMAFK> Then we'll see how that develops, informally.

conclusion... AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05) Pt IV.