On self-governance

[Guest guest]

Why should we wait for the appointed experts to divulge a new system of

governance? Why should we not, presumably with the cooperation of the

expert committee, adopt a few rules of our own?

 

We have tried the benevolent despot system (the old Indology, with apologies

to our Founder who was never in my view a despot). One person could not

monitor the traffic adequately, and one person's point-of-view expressed

itself in ways that gave some, in their view, cause to feel victimized by

bias. A multiplication of despots might reduce these problems, but very

possibly not. If the despots were seen as split along factional lines, or

less than representative of the whole, the accusations of bias would

resurface, frictions increase, and the services of an ultimate despot again

would be called for to escape the quasi-anarchy of the list recently.

 

Why not try the best solution first -- self-governance according to

self-chosen and self-enforced "laws"?

 

We can by acting democratically together:

-- define the purpose and scope of this list;

-- define the standards of courtesy and speech;

-- provide a method of fair enforcement of these standards;

-- protect the academic nature of this community

 

Of course, he who holds the "Moderator" password ultimately controls the

list. But I doubt very much that the experts would object to a system that

worked; they would have no reason not to agree to reasonable suggestions

having consensus support.

 

As a starting point for consideration, let me suggest this:

 

1. Unless someone knows a way to count votes in a , consensus

decision-making must govern. This can be accomplished by (1) a motion by

any member stating any matter as the sense of the group, which has been (2)

called to the attention of the group by the Moderator, and to which (3) no

reasonable objection has been voiced. The Moderator to determine what is a

reasonable objection, with appeal to the panel of assisting moderators.

 

2. The first order of business after agreeing together to form a

self-governing body should be (1) to adopt our Founder and the

behind-the-scenes experts' committee as our own, and to ask that they

conduct their deliberations transparently and on-line; (2) to frame bylaws

establishing the purposes, scope, standards, rules, and administration of

this group, so as to protect its academic value.

 

I so move.

 

David