Re: <nettime> process reporting?

[Ted Byfield via Nettime-tmp <nettime-tmp@mail.ljudmila.org>]

On 29 May 2023, at 5:08, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:

> Which of those seven criteria did Menno's proposal not satisfy?  Let's be
> specific, so that we can help fill in the gaps.  Let's do it on the list, so
> that it is clear that we are not just rejecting proposals out of hand without
> considering how they might be improved.
>
> It is OK for there to be multiple proposals, or even for multiple people to
> offer to contribute to different functions listed above.  The more the
> merrier; we need to see what we have.
>
> We're doing this in good faith -- let's get it done.

One advantage of a graying list is that many people have been through things  like this and probably recognize some of the dynamics: the push to create an air of inevitability around an option, criteria proposed and adopted in one fell swoop, the "just do it" moment. And of course things like this, when efforts to do things in the open are recast as the very image of opacity and hands that were trusted are revealed to be hidden:

On 29 May 2023, at 5:22, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:

> And, for the avoidance of doubt, we don't need moderators to
> continue; see my earlier message. The idea that we need to
> solicit moderators is a dangerous distraction. What we need
> now is for people to continue running the list.

This is basically Facebook's argument: we don't need human judgment, just engineers. I don't think it's a good one, but what matters more than my view: that model works until it doesn't, and that's when the people who merely "run the list" become moderators. Better just to call them that from the beginning and, maybe, say one community ideal is for mods to be as minimal and low-key as possible.

Geoffrey, I don't know whether it's your intent, but one effect of your heavy-handed advocacy might be to discourage a wider or more free-form conversation. In fact, Felix and I have been trying to push offlist proposals *onto* the list for open discussion. People are often more willing to talk privately that publicly — in part out of concerns that good-faith ideas might be ensnared in negative conversations.

So I'll make two requests. First, that people try to think about this more creatively and less cynically — say, in terms of what's desirable rather than what's inevitable. (The only thing truly inevitable thing here is that, sooner or later, someone will make a Succession reference. 😹) And, second, Geoffrey, that you say what you have to say then leave ample space and time for others. I'd like to do the same, and I take Felix's relative quiet as endorsing that approach.

Cheers,
Ted
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: https://mail.ljudmila.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-tmp
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: