At 11:00 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Here is a quote from the constitution:
>
>2.2 "JOS*" shall use collaboration, as opposed to authoritarian methods, as
>the basis for all operations except as needed for organizational details,
>including, but not limited to, design and coding issues.
>
>What does this mean? When I read it one way, it says "authoritarian
>methods" are not encouraged. When I read it again, it says "authoritarian
>methods" are required (needed) for organizational details. Regardless,
>there is no provision for the office of a president. I consider a president
>to be part of those "authoritarian methods", especially when I read the
>VoteInfo article on JOS Wiki. I cringe when I see the word "expedite"
>because it has always been an excuse suitable for oppression.
For org details, it says we do need authoritarian methods. This is simply
because, for some things like writing checks or answering questions during
interviews, someone has to actually do it on behalf of jos without a vote
and every member participating. ;)
I agree that dictatorships leave a lot of room for oppression. But the
question has come up if we can tolerate the inefficiencies of a true
democracy or do we risk a dictatorship (which is much more efficient). The
hope is always that you get a "benevolent dictatorship" but its at the risk
that you get a bad one which, being more efficient, can do a lot more damage.
The original discussion on the general mailing list essentially boiled down
to: "JOS, the organization, is broken and we should take some drastic
measures to try and fix it. The fix is an interim President." (my
interpretation)
Now, I'm getting the vibe that the mood is swinging back to: "JOS, the
organization, is broken but we can fix it without taking drastic measures
like an interim President." (my interpretation)
-iain
_______________________________________________
General maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general
