Fire List, 1998
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:49:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Harbeck <jharbeck@emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: civility
To: fire@prometheus.wwwh.com
Since Laura is not, in the eyes of at least one affected person
(Kevin), necessarily qualified to speak to what the conduct on this list
ought to be, I will do so.
(Ahem.)
GROW UP! And that means you, too, Kevin!
Admittedly, I find such almost unbelievably childish exchanges to
be so funny that I sometimes save them, as I did with Anton's diaper-rash
rant. And admittedly this list is far from being the worst possible. I
left newsgroups in my dust years ago because they were full of ranting
dilettantish flame-boys. For that matter, the journal of the Mega Society,
_Noesis_, has had a history of some pretty remarkable exchanges, the
funniest being the unabashedly arrogant screeds of Chris Langan. It was
actually a pretty entertaining journal for quite some time, as its editor,
Rick Rosner, was very good-humored; I read borrowed copies and finally
decided to subscribe to it (in spite of having missed qualifying by one
measly point, ouch). Unfortunately, Rick Rosner resigned and was replaced
by Kevin Langdon. Now, I'm pretty sure that Kevin has a sense of humor,
but I've never seen actual evidence of this. I DO find it interesting that
he has time to author throusands of words of commentary on other people's
writings and actions every month while he still hasn't, in something like
three years, sent me the LAIT second norming report I requested and paid
for, nor for that matter any status report on it. I suppose this is
understandable, however, as it takes very little time or (especially)
mental or physical effort to write reactive criticism, whereas responding
to the rather large backlog of test-related mail I suspect he has would be
a considerable investment of effort and money (the latter of which,
however, he ought to have--there were fees involved, though certainly not
the ridiculous ones Hoeflin charges).
However. I'm wandering off my point. It is the following: as
entertaining as some of these tongue-lashings can be, they really are
counterproductive to the real development of useful lines of thought. The
other list which I spend a reasonable amount of time and effort on is the
American Society for Aesthetics listserver, which is populated by
university professors and graduate students. The level of debate is as
high as it is on this list, and a bit more focused to boot, and the
debate is quite civil by comparison. There are the occasional sharp or
sarcastic or mildly deprecatory missives; there are one or two somewhat
crankish sorts. But the overall tone is quite polite, several times more
polite than it is much of the time on this list, and a good deal more is
ultimately accomplished and gained.
I do have one speculation: I find that there are assorted people
who seem to have some sort of Cinderella complex with their intelligence
(I believe for a long time I was one such to some degree): they come
across strongly with their intellect, taking whatever crosses their mind
as brilliant, but never wanting to put out a lot of real effort, in fact
afraid of doing so--what they want is to have everyone recognize their
brilliance, and they will be the golden child, and it will be magical and
they will be perfect and it will have been accomplished without their
relying on anyone else. When others fail to do so, the panic caused by
the inconsistency between how they feel it all should be and how it is
translates into a haughtiness by compensation, an aggressiveness,
arrogance. The truth of the matter is that at the root they feel
themselves of little worth and require this Cinderella transformation in
order to become the worthwile person they want to be. If they can
learn--and this tends to take time--that they are actually already
worthwhile people with a lot of potential--but potential that they need to
put effort into actualizing--their quality of life and of interaction will
improve substantially. I find this complex to be operant in varying
degrees in quite a lot of people in the High-IQ societies, though not
everyone; and I think it accounts for a certain amount of the acrimony one
gets, though not all of it.
This is just to seek an explanation, anyway, not to make excuses.
First and foremost I think a few lessons in manners never hurt anyone.
Rudeness disguising itself as honesty is just bullshit.
On the other hand, it's pretty clear that many people on this list
just enjoy a good argument like some people enjoy a good fight or game of
some sport, and I must admit that I sometimes feel like a good argument,
too. But one should always consider the consequences.
There, that's my two bits, along with a little gratuitous carping
to prove I'm not perfect either.
James Harbeck.
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:20:15 -0800
To: Prometheus <fire@wwwh.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: Re: a practical problem -- Exactly!
At 02:07 AM 10/31/98 +0900, Don Johnson wrote:
> Fred V. said:
>> Just for clarification since it is evidently not obvious to
>> everyone. It's amazing how someone else's summary of what we
>> say can be so [Quoted material truncated by Don.]
> I guess you're referring to the thing with Harold. I haven't
> been concerned with wading through that, but I wouldn't have
> any problem with comments like his at whatever time they are
> offered. Instead my attention was drawn by the interesting
> problem which you presented, though I take it not intentionally.
There's an old rule of thumb: when in doubt, vote no. If you
don't understand exactly what a measaure proposes to do and why
it's important to do it, it's probably intended to further
someone's hidden agenda.
In order for there to be debate on matters before the society,
there must be a timeframe established for voting, and proposed
business must be submitted in time for members to comment on it.
But *somebody* is going to have the last word before the vote
is cast, no matter how you slice it, and you have to allow last-
minute comments to be included in order to have any debate at
all. *The last comment, however early it may be, is always
unanswered.*
However, the playing field is evened if arguments pro and con
on matters to be voted on must be submitted to the Editor by
the deadline for the election issue. Everybody gets to put in
his two cents. And the Editor must not make editorial replies
to these arguments. Fred is aware of this, of course, and
that's why it was frustrating for him to see Harold's comments
"too late" to reply to them. However, in this instance, I think
Fred is being too hard on himself. Material circulated through
this e-mail list is fair game for commentary for publication
in the same issue as the original piece. (I certainly did not
agree not to write for publication in *GoF* about the messages
on the society's e-mail list when I signed up for *fire*, and
thus I am not obligated not to do so.) And that seems to me
to include the Editor. Fred, I believe you have every right
to publish your rebuttal to Harold's arguments.
>> [Don said]
>>> In general though Fred makes good points. Consider for
>>> example the following two comments of his:
>>>> 1. Concerns must be aired in the forum for that debate such
>>>> that all parties to that debate can be heard.
>>>> 2. Divisiveness should be kept out of our journal.
>>> Perhaps some of us can think of a clever solution where both
>>> can be accommodated, however contradictory they may be on the
>>> surface?
>> Perhaps there's a subtlety here that I miss. The solution is
>> trivial --
> The general problem here is not trivial. Otherwise you wouldn't
> be writing such a lengthy reply and other people nothing at all,
> but then I suppose one man's 800-lb gorilla is another man's
> subtlety and not even that to someone else.
The problem isn't trivial, but there is nonetheless a single
correct solution.
> People advocate full freedom of expression as though it's
> desirable
It is, provided it's defined reasonably (no unsubstantiated
charges against people, no fraudulent offerings, no child
pornogrpahy, no invasion of personal privacy, etc.--in short
don't print what it's illegal to print). We're all intelligent
adults and we should be able to listen to one another despite
the fact that we disagree about certain matters or may
occasionally find one another's remarks in poor taste.
> and as though we are even capable of such a thing,
Censorship shouldn't reduce our ability to express ourselves
any further than our innate limitations require.
> and then speak against behavior they consider divisive.
I'm suspicious of the word "divisive." What is divisive? If a
man sees an injustice, or a pattern of adherence to suboptimal
standards by habit, why should he suffer in silence?
> (Reminds me of Einstein's famous quote about the contrasts
> and contradictions that can permanently live peacefully side
> by side inside a human skull . . . ) There is something
> profound here about the human condition, and I can well
> understand the impulse to simply dismiss the issue as trivial
> or however else one chooses to eliminate such a pest from
> disturbing the tranquility inside our skulls. After all,
> some utterances don't qualify for expression, or they are
> mistimed, or they are repugnant, or they are part of a scheme,
> or _________ (fill in the blank) and it's all okay (or not
> okay or irrelevant).
Some utterances are less worthy than others, for sure, but in
a free marketplace of ideas the truth will prevail, in the
long run.
>>> I don't expect a whole lot of response on my challenge
>>> regarding the above problem. We seem to be much better
>>> at weighing balls.
>> I challenge you. I don't give a damn about balls.
The relative *importance* of the two subjects was not the
point. Don was comparing our *efficacy in handling* them.
> Yes but most people do. That is why I commented that I
> don't expect a whole lot of response. In fact I expected
> one from you and zilch from everyone else, and that's how
> it turned out. Playing with balls is a lot more fun for
> most people than hot potatoes.
One more baked potato on the plate.
Kevin Langdon
From: GCFogleman@aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:13:10 EST
To: fire@wwwh.com
Subject: Ombudsman's Response to Three Complaints
The following is for publication in GOF #101.
Ombudsman’s Reply to Three Complaints
Kevin Langdon has formally submitted the following three complaints to me:
1. Constitutionally Impermissible Official Secrecy. Summary: The Prometheus
constitution (Article VI.1) states: "The rights of each member shall
include:...g. The right to examine Society records at any reasonable time
except that any member's test scores and personal finances shall be
confidential and withheld from the membership and the public unless the
affected member permits otherwise." The Membership Committee is an official
body constituted according to the Prometheus constitution and appointed by the
President. If it is an official body, the e-mail messages containing its
deliberations are Society records and subject to inspection. I have demanded
access to these records and the President has not responded. The constitution
*requires* that these e-mails be made available to the general membership of
Prometheus--and anyone who joins the Membership Committee is required to know
what obligations our constitution places upon him or her, including the
requirement for full disclosure to the membership. There is no justification
for withholding these records to which the membership is entitled by virtue
of Article VI.1g. Article VI.2 states specifically that "Members' rights may
not be abrogated, nor shall they be surrendered or bargained away, nor may
anyone be permitted to violate these rights. The Society shall act promptly
and diligently to protect these rights." [Ombudsman’s note: This complaint
was submitted with the following condition: “If you no longer advocate or
support withholding the messages in question from the membership, then item #1
is submitted to you as Ombudsman.” I do not accept this condition.
Submission of complaints to the Ombudsman should not be conditioned upon the
response expected. I will take complaints submitted to the Ombudsman at face
value and will do my best to respond to them fairly and thoughtfully. Kevin
Langdon also indicated that, given my previously stated opinions on a related
matter, I may have a conflict of interest on this complaint. I also reject
this consideration. It is possible for the Ombudsman to have a conflict of
interest with respect to a complaint (e.g., if the complaint is clearly
directed against the Ombudsman), but merely stating opinions on related
matters does not constitute a conflict of interest.]
2. Appointment of Nonmembers to the Membership Committee. Summary: The
composition of the Membership Committee violates Article II.4 of the
constitution in including nonmembers of the society. Article II.4 provides
that "The [Membership] Committee shall consist of the President, the
Membership Officer, and at least three other members such that a majority of
the other members are recognized as having experience in the field of
psychometrics." It is offensive that nonmembers are permitted access to
confidential Prometheus materials which are denied to interested members of
the society, in violation of the Prometheus constitution. [Ombudsman’s note:
Kevin Langdon withdrew complaint #2 after submitting it. I will, however,
respond to it since it involves an important constitutional point.]
3. Members Are Required to Permit Publication of Their Addresses. Summary:
Article VI.4 provides that "Members shall notify the Treasurer of any change
of address and shall allow their names and addresses to be published in
Society publications." However, the current roster published on the society's
Web site omits the addresses of some members. To be in compliance with the
constitution, we must notify these members that they must provide addresses
for internal society publication or resign their memberships. Article VI.5
provides that "Members agree to abide by the constitution of the Prometheus
Society."
------
Ombudsman’s Response: My responses to complaints #2 and #3 are very narrowly
focused on the issue at hand and I will provide those responses first. My
response to complaint #1, which will be somewhat broader in scope, will come
at the end.
2) In Article III.4 the constitution specifically states that the “committee
shall consist of the President, the Membership Officer, and at least three
other members such that a majority of the other members are recognized as
having experience in the field of psychometrics.” The constitution does not
require that the Membership Committee be “members only.” In addition, in X.10
the constitution states that the “President may appoint non-members to perform
certain functions ...” I conclude that having non-members of Prometheus on
the Membership Committee is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the
constitution.
Also, the materials being examined by the Membership Committee are not
“confidential Prometheus materials” in violation of the constitution. All
materials being discussed are, to my knowledge, publicly available to
Prometheus members. No scores of specific individuals, etc., have been made
available to this group.
3.) In VI.4 it is stated that members shall *allow* their names and addresses
to be published in Society publications. However, nowhere in the constitution
is it *required* that the Society publish the addresses of all members.
Furthermore, Article VI.1.d states that a right of each member is “The right
to be protected from ... violation of privacy.” Thus, if a member requests
that his or her address not be published, then Article VI.1.d and Article VI.4
are in conflict. Rights, however, should generally have priority over
obligations. Since Article VI.1.d is a *right*, it should be given priority
in this case over Article VI.4, which is an obligation.
1.) The issue here seems to revolve around whether or not the e-mail messages
containing the deliberations of the Membership Committee constitute a “society
record” or not. Note that the constitution does not specifically say that
minutes should be kept of the Membership Committee’s deliberations. Since the
constitution does specify in III.5 that the membership needs to ratify the
Membership Committee’s guidelines, it *is* required that the Membership
Committee produce a report.
The constitution is silent on what is to be considered an official Society
record.
The question is a basic one of whether or not e-mail correspondence such as
that between Membership Committee members is to be considered conversation or
record. What is in the best interest of the Society? I am concerned about
where to draw the line. If Membership Committee e-mails are society records,
would fire@prometheus e-mail messages also be society records? What about an
e-mail to the President from a member?
One of the purposes of the Society is “To provide a forum for the exchange of
ideas between members.” E-mail is becoming a major forum. Many Society
members would feel stifled in their e-mail conversations if e-mail messages
were considered official Society records instead of a mode of conversation.
Also, Article VI.1.d, on right to privacy, is relevant here. Allowing one
member to demand and obtain access to the e-mail messages or postings of
another member would be an egregious violation of privacy.
In conclusion, e-mail exchanges should generally be considered *conversations*
and not *records*. They should be thought of as analogous to telephone
conversations or teleconferences. As such, they are not subject to inspection
on demand by members.
In the particular case of this complaint, I note that no significant
information is being withheld from Prometheus Society membership: the
Membership Committee report, which will be made available to and voted upon by
the membership as a whole, will contain an excruciating level of detail about
the deliberations of the Membership Committee.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 00:07:40 -0800
To: Prometheus <fire@wwwh.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: GoF Submission: My Original Three Complaints
*Gift of Fire* submission:
My Original Three Complaints
-------------------------------------
Kevin Langdon
The following message was sent to Guy Fogleman one week before
the deadline for this issue of *GoF*:
This purpose of this e-mail is to bring to your attention three matters
of concern to me.
1. Constitutionally Impermissable Official Secrecy
At 11:31 PM 10/11/98 EDT, you wrote:
> In a message dated 10/11/98 8:18:18 PM, kevin.langdon@polymath-
> systems.com wrote:
>> I have spoken out very forcefully against the current policy of
>> official secrecy in the TNS ExCom, contradicting TNS' long-
>> standing policy of participatory democracy. I cannot condone a
>> similar policy in the Prometheus Membership Committee.
>>
>> This Committee is acting under the authority of the Prometheus
>> Society, as Fred Vaughan has forcefully pointed out. I have no
>> sympathy for those who wish to hide our work from the Prometheus
>> membership.
> I'm sorry, but Kevin's comments are off base. There is a difference
> between condoning official secrecy ("hiding" work from the
> membership) and desiring privacy during deliberation of work that
> *will* be made public. In fact, the work of this committee will be
> voted upon by the membership!
To cast informed votes, members must be *fully* informed. Springing
a single recommendation on the membership makes it damned difficult
for anyone to argue against it. It's similar to the inherently undemocratic
institution of the nominating committee, through which unrepresentative
cliques perpetuate their domination of many membership organizations.
> (See the Prometheus constitution Article III.5).
See the Prometheus constitution (Article VI.1): "The rights of each
member shall include:...g. The right to examine Society records at any
reasonable time except that any member's test scores and personal
finances shall be confidential and withheld from the membership and
the public unless the affected member permits otherwise."
The Membership Committee is an official body constituted according
to the Prometheus constitution and appointed by the President. If it
is an official body, the e-mail messages containing its deliberations are
Society records and subject to inspection. I have demanded access to
these records and the President has not responded.
> We are not *deciding* anything, we are developing a *proposal*.
And the Democratic primary in Berkeley is just selecting a candidate
to be voted on in the general election.
Article II.3 provides that "The President shall appoint a Membership
Committee to rule on the acceptability of various IQ tests, to
determine what minimum scores on each test qualify for admission,
and to periodically review and make recommendations on admission
standards in general." That sounds a lot like deciding something to me.
> I believe that the MCs work will be of significantly higher quality if
> its discussions can be frank and open, and this cannot happen if
> they take place in front of an audience.
I disagree vehemently with the idea that it's legitimate for people to
be honest only in private. The way I live my life, if somebody doesn't
like what I say or do he can go to hell. Nobody should be editing his
or her participation in a scientific debate according to what anybody
else might think about it.
And even if this were a valid consideration, it could not overrule
Article VI.1g.
> If, however, one or two people stay on the committee who insist
> on archiving the MC deliberations for publication on the Internet
> (as was done with the TNS ExCom), then my response will be
> simple: I will reduce the number of entries in the "To" list on my
> future MC e-mails by one or two!
> - Guy
The constitution *requires* that these e-mails be made available to
the general membership of Prometheus--and anyone who joins the
MC is required to know what obligations our constitution places
upon him or her, including the requirement for full discclosure to
the membership. Ignorance of the constitution on the part of one
undertaking responsibility under it is no excuse.
There is no justification for withholding these records to which the
membership is entitled by virtue of Article VI.1g. Article VI.2 states
specifically that "Members' rights may not be abrogated, nor shall
they be surrendered or bargained away, nor may anyone be permitted
to violate these rights. The Society shall act promptly and diligently to
protect these rights."
2. Appointment of Nonmembers to the Membership Committee
The composition of the Membership Committee violates Article II.4
of the constitution in including nonmembers of the society. Article
II.4 provides that "The [Membership] Committee shall consist of
the President, the Membership Officer, and at least three other
members such that a majority of the other members are recongized
as having experience in the field of psychometrics."
It is offensive that nonmembers are permitted access to confidential
Prometheus materials which are denied to interested members of
the society, in violation of the Prometheus constitution.
3. Members Are Required to Permit Publication of Their Addresses
Article VI.4 provides that "Members shall notify the Treasurer of any
change of address and shall allow their names and addresses to be
published in Society publications." However, the current roster
published on the society's Web site omits the addresses of members
Steve Schuessler, Greg Scott, and Marilyn vos Savant (as well as
those of nonmembers David Slater and Hedley St. John-Wilson).
To be in compliance with the constitution, we must notify these
members that they must provide addresses for internal society
publication or resign their memberships. Article VI.5 provides that
"Members agree to abide by the constitution of the Prometheus
Society."
Issues #2 and #3 are submitted as complaints to the Ombudsman,
but I need to know your current position on the first issue above.
If you no longer advocate or support withholding the messages in
question from the membership, then item #1 is submitted to you as
Ombudsman.
If you have not changed your position in the light of the above you
are one of those against whom I am complaining and thus have a
conflict of interest with regard to the complaint. As President
Vaughan has appointed all the officers of the Society to the MC,
there is no officer for whom this conflict does not exist. And as
President Vaughan also has a conflict with regard to appointing a
substitute Ombudsman, under those circumstances I will have to
take my case directly to the membership.
It would obviously make no sense to have the members vote on
this before the matter is mooted by the election of new officers.
Therefore, if there is no cooperation on this point, I will be
forced to organize an opposing slate to oust the lot of you from
office, and this will, naturally, take some time; therefore, I ask
you to respond promptly and unambiguously to this message.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 00:08:30 -0800
To: Prometheus <fire@wwwh.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: GoF Submission: Members for Open Governance
*Gift of Fire* Submission:
Announcing the Founding of Members for Open Governance
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Langdon
Members for Open Governance is a group dedicated to the following
principles:
1. Protection of member rights
2. Democratic institutions
3. Checks and balances
4. Opennes of society records and deliberations
5. Scientific psychometric standards
Too often in the higher-IQ societies, despots have arisen, finding
one pretext or another to avoid sharing power with the rank-and-
file membership, violating the constitutions of the societies, denying
members their rights, protecting official secrets, and persecuting
their critics.
Evidence that this process is taking place in Prometheus at the
present time is presented in my complaints to the Ombudsman and
my reply to Guy Fogleman's Ombudsman's report elsewhere in this
issue.
I have been in the forefront of the opposition to tyranny by the
officers of the higher-IQ societies for many years. I hope to attract
to this cause many supporters and a few who are willing to submit
their names as candidates for elective office in the forthcoming
Prometheus election.
If you are interested in getting involved in MOG and the
movement toward free and open governance in Prometheus,
write to me at P.O. Box 795, Berkeley, CA 94701 or kevin.
langdon@polymath-systems.com, or call me at (510) 524-0345.
From: GCFogleman@aol.com
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 16:09:31 EST
To: fire@wwwh.com
Subject: Statement of Candidacy
I intend to run for the office of Ombudsman of the Prometheus Society in the
upcoming Society elections. Below is a first cut at a candidacy statement
that I will submit to GoF #102. I welcome comments.
- Guy
As Ombudsman, I will do my best to respond promptly , thoroughly, and
thoughtfully to complaints I receive from any member. I think the Ombudsman
plays an important role in helping to maintain the stability of the Society,
and agree wholeheartedly with Greg Scott’s comments under “What can you expect
from me?” in his “Ombudsman's Statement” in GoF #90.
The Prometheus Society’s constitution is a good document. If we abide by its
letter and spirit it will serve us well. I will do my best to interpret the
constitution faithfully and in a common -sense manner. I will not shy away
from choosing interpretations that I believe are in the Society’s best
interest. That is not to say I will actively interpret the constitution. I
will not be “creative,” but will be faithful to what is written (including, of
course, all amendments approved by the membership in the future). I will also
not be active in the sense of unilaterally stating an official opinion, as
Ombudsman, on issues being discussed by the membership, but will only respond
officially when I receive a formally-submitted complaint. (I do, however,
intend to participate fully as a member of the Society, and do not intend to
abstain from offering personal opinions on issues I find interesting). I will
ask and expect, though, that complaints be submitted in good faith and without
conditions or attempts at manipulation. No matter how complaints are
submitted, however, my response will be in good faith. I do not claim to be,
and in fact am not, bias-free. What I do claim, however, is that I will do
everything I can to be objective in my responses to complaints.
Re-reading the 1997 issues of GoF, it is evident that there have been previous
instances of (mis)use of the constitution almost as a weapon to disrupt
Society processes. This is a practice that is not in keeping with the
intended spirit of the constitution or the stated purposes of the Society, and
I will do what I can to “dampen” this type of abuse of the constitution. I
care about this Society and will do what I can to help it run smoothly.
Finally, I want to state my position on privacy: The right to privacy is one
of the rights that I will continue to hold as a high priority. It will
generally trump other rights and obligations in the constitution.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:01:06 -0800
To: Prometheus <fire@wwwh.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: Re: this horse ain't dead yet
For publication in *Gift of FIre*:
At 12:20 AM 12/24/98 +0900, Don Johnson wrote:
> First some history to explain why some of us got so irked. On July 25,
> 1997 our Editor, contrite at the time, wrote as follows:
>> 2) The editor stands corrected concerning his comment to Don Johnson,
>> Harold Nickel, et. al. concerning "twisted interpretations" of the
>> constitution with regard to time alloted to send in a ballot! It seems
>> quite clear that "mailing" should be interpreted as "sending"
and NOT
>> "receiving!" I'm sorry.
Fred promised that he'd publish all submissions to *GoF* then he rejected
something I submitted. He promised that he'd let the members of the MC
decide how to handle the question of secrecy, then foreclosed a process
that was moving in the direction of a compromise everyone could live
with, gave me an ultimatum based on his original position, and kicked me
off the committee when I wouldn't go for it.
Fred protests too much about his "honesty."
<snip>
> Rather than wrangle over what has happened or find fault with the
> Ombudsman's finding, there is a simpler way of handling this by
> simply looking forward.
I agree, but Guy's handling of my complaint and Harold's shows that
we need a different Ombudsman.
<snip>
> Rather than unilaterally come up with a proposition myself, I'd rather
> discuss it to get a better idea of what a consensus might be to satisfy the
> following conditions:
> 1. Allow for an editor whose mail takes a day or two more either way.
> Suppose we have an editor who lives say in rural Iowa where I was just
> before coming to Japan. In Cornville USA things aren't as snazzy as in
> Federal Way, WA.
> 2. Allow for someone gone 3 - 4 days on a business trip. Such a short trip
> is common with business people and should not have a disenfranchising
> effect.
> 3. Allow a short time for someone to think over his vote which might not
> necessarily be on the top of his list at a given moment. I often face
> crunches and may not be able to hop at the moment I notice the GoF in my
> stack of mail.
> 4. The world does not revolve the US of A.
Yes, it does (I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good thing).
> We wouldn't want in the least to discourage international participation.
> Mail does take longer. Suppose I lived somewhere far from Tokyo?
> Then another day or two both ways. I consider 23 days would tend to
> disenfranchise people like me, most of whom probably wouldn't speak
> up as I am.
Right. They haven't spoken up when I've mentioned this in the past.
I agree with all of Don's conditions. And what makes it a no-brainer is
that there is no good reason at all for a short deadline, nor for a receipt
deadline.
> Maybe 30 is a more reasonable figure for postmark to receipt without
> being a drag on things. If officers are elected for 2 years at a time
This is another thing we need to change. Officers tend to burn out in
less than two years. Annual elections may be thought burdensome by
some but without them we wind up with many officers appointed to
fill vacancies rather than elected.
> and propositions change the Constitution, our basic law, then the
> election should be important enough that the GoF can come out a
> week or so later to accommodate that additional week for voting,
> provided elections are reasonably spaced.
The current *GoF* schedule calls for 5-week spacing of issues, with
an additional two weeks over the Christmas/New Years holiday. If we
had the elections just one issue of *GoF* earlier than we're doing this
year, this would be ideal, as there would then be two weeks for
ballots postmarked on the deadline to reach the Editor before the
following issue date (allowing 1/2 week for the Editor to forward the
ballots to the Treasurer). The results of voting on propositions not
timed to be included in the regular election issue would have to be
announced two issues later, but this is no big deal.
Actually, though, I'd like to have the election process begin one
issue earlier still. When a proposal that Prometheus officers take a
specific action (such as my proposal that the MC corrspondence be
released to the membership) or a constitutional amendment is
published, there is a requirement that there be another issue before
balloting in which members' comments on the proposed action or
amendment can be published (though the constitution is a little bit
ambiguous on this point; as I interpret it, comments on proposals
could be printed, along with a ballot, in the issue following that in
which the proposals are published). We should do the same thing
with regard to candidates. The members certainly have as much
right to express their opinions about who their officers should be
as they have to comment on anything else.
> I see no justification to put the onus on the voter. The onus
> should be on the Society to maximize member participation.
Right.
> However we do things most people probably won't vote anyway,
> but the better we structure things the more likely we'll get another
> 20 or 30% and then maybe another 20 or 30% if people see we
> are serious about the democratic process. As I understand it,
> there have been good examples of non-democratic processes in
> other Hi-IQ societies. We should be able to do better.
I think that this is an important point. Apparently, three-sigma
intelligence is not enough for people to get it that democracy and
member rights are good and authoritarianism and official secrecy
are bad. Is four-sigma intelligence enough? The jury's still out.
> My purpose is not to beat a dying horse but find a way to better
> the Society, especially since I think that this can be achieved
> without more bricks. We can't do a whole lot about the past, but
> there is plenty we can do for the future.
> Don Johnson
Sometimes a few bricks are needed to bring home the lessons of
the past.
Kevin Langdon
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 11:12:26 -0800
From: "Russell F. Vaughan" <fred@vaughan.cc>
To: fire@vaughan.cc
Subject: Re: Future of FIRE list
GCFogleman@aol.com wrote:
>
...
> Fred: would you (or anyone else)
> consider starting an invitation-only listserv for members and subscribers
> interested in congenial discussion?
Since our conversation, I have decided that in lieu of "fire" not having
been "accepted" as a Prometheus facility and since it it is in reality
mine, that I would, in fact, have an invitation-only exclusively
intellectual discussion e-mail list with the first sign of rancor
bouncing the commentor no questions asked/no explanation given.
> I would be willing to help support such a
> listserv financially.
No need.
>
> - Guy
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:00:10 -0800
To: Prometheus <fire@vaughan.cc>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: Re: Future of FIRE list
For publication in *Gift of Fire*:
Censorship of the Prometheus Listserv
Kevin Langdon
At 11:12 AM 12/27/98 -0800, Fred Vaughan wrote:
> GCFogleman@aol.com wrote:
>> Fred: would you (or anyone else) consider starting an invitation-
>> only listserv for members and subscribers interested in congenial
>> discussion?
> Since our conversation, I have decided that in lieu of "fire" not
> having been "accepted" as a Prometheus facility and since it it is in
> reality mine, that I would, in fact, have an invitation-only exclusively
> intellectual discussion e-mail list with the first sign of rancor
> bouncing the commentor no questions asked/no explanation given.
Here's Fred's latest anti-democratic ploy. Two weeks before the
deadline for the election issue, he intends to choke off the principal
forum for criticism of his administration.
What is not really Fred's is the fire subscription list; people signed on
to what they were given to understand was a *Prometheus* mailing
list. Those who wish to establish an alternative free press are entitled
to access to this list.
If Fred actually followed his rule stated above, he would have to kick
himself off the list the first time he posted anything.
Kevin Langdon