[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subject: Re: [hackers] Edge-to-Edge Principle / Reed's Law > > > Zack & Jon -- i'm not sure it's a good idea to copy David Reed and > Larry Lessig on these huge e-mail messages. It might be impolite to > ask their opinion Without giving them the context of the discussion.
Actually I think there was sufficient info in the specific msg for David (who's a member of the Greater Democracy group) to respond, and he certainly has an interest in this kind of tech/political endeavor, so I see no problem going to the source for validation of the application of his thinking. I don't think I'm the one who copied Lessig, but it's less clear to me that he's apt to respond because he's covered up. > A few times now you've talked about "having to get permission from > DMT" or being "controlled by DMT", and now the "DMT mother-ship". > It's clear that you don't like the idea of someone else telling us > what to do. But it's unfair to describe DMT so adversarially, as > though they were some sort of independent controlling entity. > > There is no "us" and "them". We are all on the same team. Actually this is not exactly correct, at least at this point. We're volunteers creating something external to the Dean Campaign, and though I came late to the project, I hope I have understood correctly that the project was specifically designed to be decentralized. The problem is that, partly for legal reasons, we can't have DMT as a fuzzy conceptual center - if we have a specific connection to the Dean campaign, then that inherently changes the character of the project, because they do have to take more control of something that is specifically theirs. > Slashdot has a reasonably open moderation system, where they hand out > moderator access to lots of people. The end result of the moderation > is a pretty good consensus on which comments are informative and which > ones are pointless flames. And i don't have a sense that the > discussion there is being stifled or censored by single-minded > moderation. (The discussions may be biased because of the user > population, but that's a different thing). > > Would you be so unhappy with a system that worked as well as Slashdot? > It would probably be better, since (a) we wouldn't be relying on a > couple of dictators to select all the articles, and (b) our user > population would probably be better-behaved. I vote thumbs up for that idea, if it fits what's been developed so far... best, Jon L. Jon Lebkowsky CEO/Catalyst, Polycot http://www.polycot.com