Temperature Check: Do you want hosts for this forum?

[ellisonz]

This is non-binding and just following up on discussion when this group was launched. I'm on the fence and will refrain from voting.

2 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, we should elect hosts and give them a free hand.
	0 (0%)
	Yes, but we should severely constrain their powers.
	1 (50%)
	No, we don't need hosts.
	0 (0%)
	Other - please explain.
	1 (50%)
	Kitteh
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[this is serious]

1. Hi I'm new so I selected Pass.

[ellisonz]

2. Welcome to DU!

[eridani]

3. Willing to go along with hosts if others want them

We seem to be doing OK so far, though.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

8. Thats pretty much where I'm at too.

We haven't seen any invasions or attacks, so defense doesn't seem as important as I originally thought it might be. I think the polls will help as far as determining consensus. With regard to all the hard work that Leopolds has done with crafting guidelines , I personally think they should be finished (when convenient of course), and considered, but with no rush to implement, yet ready to implement in a hurry if needed (lets wait and see how hot it gets this summer). For the most part we all seem to be getting along great.

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. Polls now work on DU3!

Is this a new thing, ellisonz? Polls, that is.

Full disclosure: Ellisonz asked me to work a bit more on the hosting guidelines we were originally proposing for this group, in order to revise them according to what people were saying in a previous thread. I've been working away on it (there were two completely separate drafts, one submitted by long-time users from DU2 who wanted a place they felt welcome, and one submitted by ellisonz in response to feedback after the forum was created) although I haven't been pushing myself to finish it, I should probably do so very soon or else those documents will become irrelevant.

I think it is valuable to look over the proposed hosting guidelines and make necessary changes if we're going to think about hosts.

My "thing" is that I think it would be nice to run GA threads and pinned "mini-project" threads for meetups etc. here on Occupy Underground.

But if we want to have (community created) guidelines and pinned threads, hosts seem to be required. Apparently there's no such thing as "non-hosting" guidelines although I suppose we could "be different" and create them.

My feeling is that if we have hosts, they should serve at the pleasure of the group meaning the lead host would take a background role and re-appoint co-hosts according to the will of the group. I also think we should try to use consensus, which is possible using poll threads (we did it when we did the proposal for this group.

Consensus might not be used to actually choose between a slate of "candidates", for that we could use "slate" voting where you put the candidates in a straw poll and the top X vote-getters win.

But it could be used to authorize the hosts to actually do anything (including reconsider a block or off-topic decision, which shouldn't be a problem, since if we can safely get away with NO hosts, then we can safely get away with structuring any hosting guidelines in such a way that it's difficult to block users or threads except in extreme circumstances where the group actually asks the hosts to do so.) Other hosting duties such as pinning threads are less controversial and can easily be done using consensus. Note that I'm not a consensus fanatic, I just think it's an elegant system for horizontally structured, activist friendly projects which are especially open (in fact, open groups like us and Occupy are especially difficult to be run by simple majority vote without adopting a top-down structure to decide who is and is not "off the island&quot and in the tradition of Occupy.

I dunno... your thoughts? NYC SKP and Unrepentant Liberal had some thoughts on this as well.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. Actually I don't think the correct term is a "slate"

All the nominees (self or otherwise) for co-hosts would be put in an alphabetical list and submitted to poll... the lead host would appoint the top vote getter, then the lead host would appoint the second vote getter, then the lead host would appoint the third vote getter, etc. The primary function of lead host would be to serve as vibes watcher. (given the built-in nature of the position is inherent in the system!1¡)

There's something to be said for no hosts being more in the tradition of Occupy, but the question is can we do hosts and have them exist primarily to encourage GA-like structures? I.e. Occupy does have (community created, consensus driven) guidelines. We could create "non-hosting" guidelines (that also dictate the limits that would be put on appointing future hosts) by consensus, if we want to be really unique.

[ellisonz]

27. I'm starting to think we're going to need them.

There's been some nastiness in the last few days: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12522627#post13

[unionworks]

6. what forum?

Just kidding please don't beat me.

[ellisonz]

7. *smack*

w/

[unionworks]

10. AAAUGH!

My name is DYLAN RATIGAN! My name is DYLAN RATIGAN!

[sabrina 1]

9. I voted no, at least for now. Things seem to be going along fine, although when things

become busier with more events coming up, that might change.

In the spirit of OWS, I like the 'no leader' premise. Hope it can stay that way. Many people like the feeling of safety a 'protective' authoritarian figure appears to give them. For me, I'm for as little authority as possible.

[limpyhobbler]

11. Yes we should a single all powerful dictator.

Just kidding, I don't know, I like the Kitteh option.

[unionworks]

12. I told them to redecorate this place

...if they ever expect to get any customers!

Seriously, for the people who don't know me, I sincerely believe Occupy is the last hope for the disenfranchised and victims of the depression (call it what it is) that the "leaders" of our country are so willing too write off.

If not for Occupy, economic disparity wouldn't even be discussed in this election.


As far as the forum goes, Occupy is horizontal heirarchy, I like it that this forum rellects that.


This forum needs more lively discussion/colorfulness/humanness/personalness and less announcements/intergroup bickering/dry theoretical thesis's to thrive and be all it could be.

[sabrina 1]

13. I think there will be a lot more lively discussions and reports, as we had before the winter

when things start revving up again. I wrote a lot of OPs, starting on the first day, on DU2 but have been busy for the past few months. I have been trying to follow all of the cities though and have come across some really interesting developments, eg, a building given to Occupiers in one of the most devastated cities in the country right now. I have to check to see how that has been working out and will write about it when I do. It's interesting because they were moved from the park, but once given the building, which they were fixing up, an old, empty building, they had a place to keep doing what they had been doing. I'm really interested in what they are planning now and if they managed to fix the building. The local community wanted them to stay btw. Not every city has been antagonistic towards them.

I think for the future, Occupiers should approach the owners of abandoned buildings and see if they can get a semi-permanent place where the cops cannot throw them out of. Not to mention that they can still provide food for the hungry etc, as they were doing in Zuccoti Park.

Other interesting developments of a more practical and permanent nature, were eg, the SF Occupiers starting their own Credit Union. Have to check on how that is going also.

Lots has been happening over the winter and it I am certain lots more will be going on soon.

[freshwest]

17. +1

[Zorra]

14. Seems to me that we haven't needed them yet.

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

If trolls start spamming their anti-Occupy RW talking points, we can set up a host system.

We have a large group of hosts in the lgbt group, around 20 hosts or so.

We are currently working on analyzing the needs of the lgbt group and defining/refining procedure and our roles as a collective of hosts, in order to find how best serve the unique and relatively more complex needs of the lgbt DU community.

If, at some time in the future, this forum needs hosts, we may have a model for collective hosting that Occupy forum can check out (if that is ok with the other hosts of lgbt group), and modify according to need, in order to save time when trying to achieve consensus about out how to do hosting.

[Chan790]

15. Other.

I think we could use a single (or a few, for roster-depth) non-host administrative host to pin things like announcements and the SOP and handle general tasks like a secretary to the group; as the person would have no actual authority, I don't see the job as being particularly desirable, don't think there's more than one or two people who would even want the job. (I know I don't)

I'm fine with none. I just think it'd be handy to be able to pin things and other such tasks.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. That's kind of my view of hosts if we had them.

[freshwest]

16. Kitteh. All polls should be mandated to have this option. Seriously.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

19. I think a kitteh should be the host.

[pinboy3niner]

20. Be careful what you wish for...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

22. That cat could get an athoritarian thing going.

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

I nominate Aji Suki Taka Hi Kone.



What could go wrong?



Then again...

[pinboy3niner]

23. Aji Suki Taka Hi Kone looks like she could be plotting...

...Hairballs of Mass Destruction.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

24. Yes, he can be a trouble maker.

I'm withdrawing his nomination.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. Paging Dain Bramaged...

Oh there you are!

[DainBramaged]

25. BUD

[ellisonz]

26. Kick.