There is some question about the "we" in Sol's post.
There are a few levels of we here. None of them
constitute the editorial or royal we.
There is a "we" of a small group of people who established
Fluxlist a few years ago for several purposes. At the time,
the we of that era wanted a list that would engage
practicing artists while serving as an interesting forum
for historical and critical reflection. Every time some issues
came up that were critical or historical, trouble came up. It's
my view that some of the practicing artists just didn't
like the idea. Others seemed to think that historical or
critical reflection somehow served the interests of an elite
few in a way that worked against the interests of a
democratic many. However it may be, most of the people
who were here for critical or historical reflection are either
unsubscribed or else they merely lurk. I had some interesting
offlist notes from these people as they left. I thought they
were wrong to leave rather than to engage more richly,
but everyone has the right to his or her own time.
Either way, there is no rich dialogue or discourse on
these kinds of issues.
The "we" who founded the list with these purposes in
mind -- among others -- were unable to attract or hold
many of the people we had hoped would join in dialogue'
here.
Dick Higgins and I remained active, and we continued to
work with some of the original ideas, as well as to share
thoughts on issues of conemporary and current work by
active members of the list.
In the period after Dick Higgins died, harsh exchanges
developed on more than one occasion. By then, I was the
the only person active in the list regularly and with interest
pursuing historical or critical issues. Last year, I was on a
number of occasions attacked for one reason or another.
As I saw it, these were not debates or arguments with my
view, but personal attacks. I finally had enough and left the
list.
Part of the difficulty was that there was no clear consensus
among the original "we" regarding a basis of interaction.
Since there was no consensus, I stated my unwillingness to
continue participating in what seemed a harsh and
antagonistic environment.
One of the results of this was a new and larger group of
listowners, and one of the things this group did was to
establish a number of ground rules.
These ground rules were stated. Nothing was done "behind
closed doors." The list was established by a group of people
who invited others to join on a clear basis. The first group ceded
authority to the new group of listowners. All has been open.
What isn't completely open is the foundation or the choice of
listowners. Everyone on the net is free to establish a list for
any reason they wish. Anyone here who thinks this list is
bad is free to open a new list on any basis or conditions they
wish to establish. No one will blame them or complain.
Everyone is free to discuss the issue, but the fact is that the "we"
of the re-established listowner group asked all the voting members
of the listowner group. There was a lonmg, thoughtful debate.
"We" had no reason to ask anyone outside this group.
Today's "we" constitutes that listowner group. One of the
rules of the new listowner group was that the list administration
would revolve among active members of the group excepting
a few of us who opted out for various reasons. All agreed to
place daily decision responsibility in the hands of the active
list administrator acting on behalf of the listowner group.
In cases of genuine perplexity, I imagine the members of the
group might query one another or debate the issue or take
a poll among the voters. The voters are the listowners who
accept responsibility for continuing and developing the work
and project initiated by the founders.
Sol Nte acted as list administrator. There was no need for any
debate on his action specifically because he acted clearly within
the terms established when the list was re-established.
Here I will make a personal note of distinction. I was one of the
founders. I would like to have seen a slightly different kind of
list than the Fluxlist we have today. I would have enjoyed a
list in which we had greater historical and critical reflection.
Perhaps one day, I will try to develop such a list. As it is, I am
happy to remain a member. I read, I think, and I enjoy some of
the interactions. Some don't interest me. That's how it is.
Whatever I would like to see or not is beside the point of this
issue. We have some standards here now. These standards were
established by the listowners. If that group wishes to change them,
a simple vote is all it takes.
It seems to me that every member of the listowner group supports
Sol Nte, not simply because he is acting in the light of the
standards estabished by the "we" that owns the list -- but because
he has demonstrated himself to be a serious, thoughtful and
trustworthy listowner.
Anyone is free to question Sol's decision. What is not open to
question is the legitimacy of Sol's decision. The standards were
established and announced. The listowners even invited questions,
disagreement or debate before setting the standards on a
permanent basis. There were no questions and there was no
debate. The standards exist, and they are a condition of taking
part in the list.
This is all a matter of record. It's visible and open to all. There
are no closed doors, and there is no strange or mysterious cabal
making decisions. The net is a free and open space. Anyone who
wishes to do so is free to establish any kind of online community
they wish to create. The "we" who currently own Fluxlist
have built this community this way. If someone thinks there is
a better way, well, there's a wide open frontier out there. In
this community, there are a set of standards all who subscribe
have agreed to accept as a condition of participation.
I say "thank you" to Sol for prompt, effective action, and I
thank every list administrator who does the work it takes to
keep this list up and running for those of us who take part.
Ken Friedman
--
