[Peace-discuss] peace vs. peace-discuss, mmm, discussion

[Stuart Levy]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 08:02:34AM -0500, Ya'aqov Ziso wrote:
> *Stuart, *
> *
> *
> *Why not simply have one list, allowing members to read, respond or delete?

This is a fair question, which gets raised here, but not all that often.

Here's how I see the social arrangement behind this design,
and why I think it's worth keeping and occasionally arguing over,
even though that seems like a distraction from anti-war work.

'Most any group tends to grow a core of more-active people
and a larger periphery.   The more active ones may have a lot to
say about the issues of the group, what it should be doing, etc.
Sometimes they even sit on committees.  All that can involve a lot of
communication, and it can get feisty.  Core members expect that.


There's a larger set of people who may be sympathetic, interested,
and often want to participate in some things that the group does.
But they have many other things going on in their lives too -
their own committees to wrangle with.  If they try to follow all the
internal discussions of every group, of every issue that they feel any
interest in, they'd be too distracted to be effective in any of them.
(Does this sound familiar?)

By signing up for an announcements-only list, they might be saying,
Let us know the summaries of what's happening with your core group,
tell us what's most important, and we'll take part when we wish.

"We know there's a lot we're missing," they may say, "but can't
afford the attention to follow it all - or don't want to deal with the
anger that sometimes goes with your internal arguments.
But neither do we want to simply walk away from the group."

That's how I see the peace list.   They signed up for ...
a moderate amount of traffic, and announcements, sometimes of
decisions made internally by an argumentative more-active group,
which they can follow up on if they wish.

It's in that setting that 450 people have stayed on the
peace list, while a third as many stay on the discussion list.


If we start dumping *all* discussion messages on those 450
who didn't sign up expecting it, we may indeed get some new people
taking part in discussions, but we'd lose the attention of many
more -- they'd either drop off the list entirely, or stop reading
what we send.



> Why don't you tell us that peace-discuss, for many months, had no
> discussions before this one? rather than defend an inefficient idea, why not
> change it?*

I actually think it's had lots of interesting material -- articles,
opinions, calls to action.  Things posted on peace-discuss have certainly
shaped my thinking and further reading, even though I only occasionally
reply to them, and often don't agree with them.  So for me it's not
inefficient.  I hope it's valuable for others too.

Probably you've been hoping for active exchanges on threads that
interest you.  That's partly a matter of who else has chosen
to be in the active group -- what they know and care about --
partly of what issues get raised, and partly how effective is
the pot stirring that goes with raising them...

(Posting one's own commentary probably helps... And, rhetorical
questions that carry their own closed answers might be less stir-y
than open questions which are still focused enough that people have
something to chew on.  Not saying this specifically to your postings,
just in general.   Given a particular audience, what makes a good seed
for a lively discussion?)

There was a *lot* of discussion here about nuclear energy
in the followup to the Fukushima plant meltdowns.


> *Instead of enabling ALL 450 people (who get a message) respond to that
> message, you are threatening to start moderating the list and maintain its
> rigid and disabling structure???*

Several kinds of misunderstanding here -

   - Given the above, I hope it's clear that if you
     disagree/agree/want to reconsider something that was announced,
     that the core group (peace-discuss) is the group to take it to.
     That's what *they* (we) signed up for by subscribing to peace-discuss.


   - If you disagree with something that was announced... well, that's fine.
     It's a good fit for "peace" for you to announce something of your
     own on the peace list - "I think JFP is all wet.
     Let's have a counter-protest/meeting to consider this,
     or write to peace-discuss or to me to follow up.  We'll
     talk about it and post our position here in the future."

     Nobody should have cause to complain about that.  I'd defend it.


   - "threatening to start moderating" - absolutely not.
     I think the anarchic structure of AWARE's communication is essential.

     If persuasion doesn't work, then the group has failed - I would
     have to walk away from being a list moderator before using
     technical means to block discussion.

     That kind of moderation, where an Appointed Person might review
     traffic (or, ugh, people) for suitability, is OK for some groups,
     but I *would not want* to be part of AWARE if we saw it that way.


> *
> *I guess I am the first one to question your method. It was all 'peaceful'
> and 'democratic' until someone had another opinion. When that is happening,
> then you 'stick to your guns' as a moderator.*

Opinion - no.  Venue - yes.


Hope we can get back to discussing the wars soon.  Any time now.

For example, just heard our Pres. applauding the bombardment of
Libya as a shining model for future international collaboration.