Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 8:45:10
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 3:39:09
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Regarding the proposal itself:
>
> > Maybe we could consider doing it as more of an inverse 'Supreme Court' process where forum members nominate Council Members, and you as administrator confirms them? ... since they are chosen by you from those nominated.. they still aren't quite your minions. ... And to add another comment regarding the Bob's Minon's factor: I think the power they have over block length decisions is what defines them as NOT your minions, regardless of how they got into that position.
>
> > Council is a group of people.. not just one person. It would be harder for the friends of an unpardoned poster to know where to aim their fire. ... That protection is the reason I am not in favor of Council having to post individual votes. ... Perhaps for accountability's sake Bob should be aware of who votes for what
> >
> > Solstice
>
> The idea would be for them to represent (and therefore be accountable to) posters, not me. So it seems to me that posters, not me, would need to elect them and know how they vote.I know.... but there has been a very firm and wide-spread negative reaction to the idea of elections. I recognize the validity of why it is, as Dinah said, abhorrent. Elections really could create a whole 'nother monster that the long-standing members who reacted this way instinctively know is NOT a good thing in this venue. Think of it as Council's first 'vote' :-)
There's got to be another way. Members nominate, nominees accept the nomination, and you confirm is one way to do it that would be representative of the posters without it feeling like a 'popularity contest.'
> Regarding running/serving:
>
> > I've never ran for anything in my life and am happy to have it remain so.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> May I ask why you've never run for anything?
>
> > it does take a genuinely highly competitive spirit for elections to appeal to a nominated candidate.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> Posters might run because they're competitive, but they might also run despite not being competitive -- because they want to contribute.I didn't so much mean competitiveness as a motivation for someone to run.. as much as I meant that anyone whose nature is decidedly NOT competitive will be stopped by their aversion to it. I understand it because I also don't have a competitive nature - except when it comes to myself. I am always trying to 'beat' myself.. but if I am put in competition with another person, I will look for the first rabbit hole and will disappear. It is a powerful aversion that I don't think can be superceded by any amount of desire to contribute. I think you can have outstanding people with leadership potential who are very willing to contribute.. but who cannot abide competing with others to be deemed the most favored to do the contributing. I also think that the dynamics of this particular type of community is likely to have a significant proportion of people who find competition abhorent.
> The vote totals wouldn't have to be posted.
>
> 5 candidates could run "unopposed". Someone who didn't want to risk running and not being elected could withdraw if a 6th candidate were nominated.Semantics can be important, Bob. Semantics can make or break something. I'd highly recommend that the whole 'election' or 'running' concept be abandoned, and a method of putting a Council in place be constructed that does not include those terms or any kind of process that puts potential Council Members in a position of being subjected to being voted upon.
> > I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
> >
> > gg
>
> The peril Dinah mentioned, or a different one?
>
> > I am just glad
> > That people are watching out for themselves.
> > I hate to see people get hurt.
> >
> > muffled
>
> I don't want anyone to get hurt, either. Like deputies, they should be able to take some heat.For as long as you continue to compare any part of Council to Deputies, you're gonna have people associating the two regardless of how different they are. The associations generated with the term 'Deputies' are fraught with a LOT of pain. Using the term 'Deputies' to describe the Council concept causes people (very understandably) to shut down. There is nothing helpful about comparing the Council position with Deputies. Please see that.
> I can be willing to relinquish power -- which would come with responsibility -- but if posters simply will not assume it, we'll keep spinning our wheels. But it'll be more clear why we're stuck.
>
> BobI hope you're not suggesting that the clarity would focus on the members here. I myself have written that without members being willing to take leadership roles... then there can be no self-governance. But as this thing is discussed and developed, you might want to make sure there isn't a bull walking around this china closet... insensitive to the special sensitivities that are here... a bull sabotaging the development of a Council. There are very real sore spots here.. shifting focus away from yourself to the community.. and insensitivity to the inherent dynamics (i.e. non-competitive natures.. rejection sensitivities)... and I'd recommend that you do everything possible to avoid the Council concept unnecessarily putting pressure on those sensitivities. It is just nuts to use 'Deputies' and 'Council' in the same post - unless it's to demonstrate the contrast.
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972056.html