<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Jimmy Wales wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>I remember when, once upon a time, my mail was bouncing for a day, and
all the mailing lists automatically marked me as delivery disabled. I
re-enabled the major lists, but overlooked this one, which had at that
time almost no traffic I think.
Then, I thought that discussion here had fizzled.</pre>
</blockquote>
It had fizzled. It took a little bit of concerted effort to get
sustained conversations going.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>><i> But when we collectively, consciously or unconsciously, only discuss
</i>><i> policy issues "in his presence", our behavior gives the impression
</i>><i> of Jimbo as a MeatBall:GodKing. A number of people have criticized
</i>><i> the way these mailing lists operate, and some object to
</i>><i> participating as a result.
</i>...
><i> I think the mailing lists are useful, but we need to be aware of
</i>><i> appearances and not reinforce the image of a cabal.
</i>
I do agree with this, but what should we do? The mailing lists are
wide open to the public, public archives, easy subscription,
unmoderated. If my participation causes people to say that the lists
are like a "King's Court", what do you recommend that I do about it?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't have a recommendation for what you should do, because I think
the problem is not with your participation, but with our collective
behavior, as I indicated. "Our" including myself and everybody _except_
you. It's not just how you behave that determines whether you're a
GodKing, it's how we behave toward you. (Though your disavowal of that
status is helpful, and it is reassuring to know you have plans on how
to transfer responsibilities to the community.)<br>
<br>
The thing that prompted my comments was the differences I could observe
between this list, which you hadn't been reading, and the other lists
where you clearly are reading and participating. I'm sure people have
also observed how some threads take on a much greater importance simply
because you're participating in the thread. Some of that, I believe, is
that people fail to see the point in raising and discussing issues when
you're not obviously part of the conversation. We need to be more
willing to discuss (not necessarily decide) issues without your
"presence" to assist us. It's the difference between being a community
that deliberates over the issues, with a leader to assist in the
decision-making process, and being a bunch of courtiers who jockey with
each other in order to present their petitions to the king.<br>
<br>
You don't wish to be a GodKing. I don't wish to be part of a cabal. But
wishing alone does not make it so - part of what determines these
things is the perspectives of outsiders. I agree with you that the
mailing lists are as accessible as we can make them, and that deciding
not to participate can be counterproductive. Part of what makes us
"elitist" is having people avoid joining us because we're supposedly
elitist. But we still have to keep their perspective in mind, and do
our best not to reinforce such views. The problem will not go away, we
must learn to live with it.<br>
<br>
Anyway, this has become sort of a longish sermon, and unfortunately my
solutions have more of sentiment than specificity, so I'll cut it off
here.<br>
<br>
--Michael Snow<br>
</body>
</html>