[Sigia-l] Five questions about the future of this community

[Karl Fast]

> Where I do agree is with the idea of self censorship. 

What are some assumptions that we have about the people on this
list? (let me apologize in advance for going into essay-mode, again)

We assume that everyone on SIGIA-L

  1. has positive intent (ie: nobody is deliberately trying to
     destroy the group, and if they did, the group would be strong
     enough to overcome this)

  2. is intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable, and has a genuine
     interest in sharing their ideas, experience, and perspective

  3. has limits to their knowledge and wisdom, is aware of those
     limits (more or less), and is here (at least in part) so they can
     learn something from the collective wisdom of the group

  4. is a good person
  
  
I think these are good assumptions.

Oh sure, sometimes we say stupid things or give ill-considered
opinions. We aren't always as knowledgeable as we present ourselves.
And sometimes we don't listen carefully to what other people say.

But basically, I think we can assume we are here for good reasons
and we're all good people.

So why are we having this discussion? If we are all good people then
surely, as a group, we shouldn't have any problems. But we are
having problems (or at least, a good number of us believe this).

Let me suggest two possible answers. Perhaps there are others.

The first answer is that these assumptions are false at the
individual level.

That is, these assumption are true for most individuals but not for
some. We're not all good people and we don't all have good intent.
There are some bad apples, so to speak, and there are enough of them
that it's a problem. The obvious solution is to get rid of the bad
apples, or transform them into good ones. And then we remind
ourselves as *individuals* how to be a good apple: consider what you
post, deal with contentious issues off-list, be courteous, etc.

The second answer is that these assumptions are false at the group
level.

That is, these assumptions are true for individuals but once the
group reaches a certain point they become false when considering the
group as a whole. Somehow the group undermines itself, despite the
best intentions and all-around goodness of individuals. 


Most of our discussion and suggestions for addessing the issues that
have been raised assume the first answer.

I think it's the second. And I think it's the second because of
reading Clay Shirky talk about a group being it's own worst enemy. 

   http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

This is why I suggested a consitution for the group. In concrete
terms that may be a poor suggestion. But in abstract terms I still
believe it has value. At the individual level we're fine. At the
group level we kinda suck, which is why we're talking about this.


--karl