[LINK] Maintaining the link list

[Richard Chirgwin]

On 21/02/11 8:34 AM, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 02:02:43PM +1100, Kim Holburn wrote:
>> If this is going to be a democracy, it is a big change.  Are we going
>> to take this democracy idea further and have terms?  Or just a one off
>> to elect an oligarchy?
> in my experience, democracy added to small groups after they already
> exist kills them in short order - online and offline.
>
> it shifts the focus away from what the group was originally for, and
> onto the all-important "who is the leader?" and "what are the rules?"
> and "why are we doing X when>=50.1% can be rabble-roused into thinking
> we should do Y instead?" questions.
>
> IMO, we've got some willing volunteers (there's one born every minute,
> they say :) to do the minimal administrative work needed by the list.
> let's leave it at that until there's either a major problem or they want
> to retire.
>
> as for list policy, i hope it stays roughly the same.  Tony's
> light-handed moderation, and occasional setting of direction has worked
> extremely well over the years.  LINK would have been very different (and
> less useful&  interesting, IMO) otherwise.
>
> craig
>
> ps: i'm a firm believer in the 'benevolent dictator' model for small
> groups with voluntary membership, especially if the 'dictator' doesn't
> act like one(*). it's the most *effective* way of getting things done.
> with little or no scope for squabbling over the minute details of what
> they 'should' be doing, members just get on with doing it.
<grins>

This, Craig, reminds me of how the 1920s bowler Arthur Mailey described 
"selection panels" in cricket.

"Selection panels only work if one member is a dictator and the other 
two are dead wood. I know this, because when I was on a selection panel, 
I was 50% of the dead wood".

Cheers,
Chirgwin
> (*) being too autocratic with volunteers is about as effective as
> herding cats.
>