[LINK] Maintaining the link list
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Mon Feb 21 08:44:01 AEDT 2011
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.
> 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.
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".
> (*) being too autocratic with volunteers is about as effective as
> herding cats.
More information about the Link