Re: [ALSC-Forum] Mistake in methodology ---> initial approach to self-galvanzing ALM

[Joop Teernstra]

On 07:46 22/02/02 -0500, Esther Dyson said:

>Despite all the questions and lack of agreement on its precise form, the 
>ALM makes sense and is *necessary.*  Whatever the details, some form of 
>public input - both into decision-making and into the selection of some 
>subset of the board - is key to the vitality, legitimacy and 
>accountability of the organization and its (limited) authority.

Here is my hand up.
With the above, you speak for me.
Now about the meagre "some form of public input" we may all still have a 
long way to discuss.
For that purpuse, our website will have a threaded Forum section.

I would like very much to read all individual ALSC members' opinions on how 
to make quick practical progress with organizing the At Large.

These are statements for the Website.

As for the rest of your message:

It sounds that the on-line peasant leaders have to behave orderly and 
civilly in order to be acceptable as talking partners to the Nobility. (the 
Board and the Staff)
Sounds pretty classical to me and not surprising at all.

Until a solid members' Charter is in place and a properly elected regional 
and/or global leadership is elected, some sort of "Noblesse Oblige" 
supervision is necessary to prevent madmen, bullies, totalitarians or big 
biz from conquering this AL space.

There is only one fly-in-the-soup: it looks as if big biz is heavily 
represented among the "Nobility". And big biz and bullies or brownshirts is 
a bad combination.
The peasants must have some assurance of a commitment to ethical behaviour 
and ethical policies. Noblesse, in other words.

I would like to hear Karl A.'s and Carl B.'s thoughts on that.

For the "Statements" section of the website.

I will publish serious Statements from anyone who envisages him/herself to 
serve in a leadership role in building the AL as an organization.



--Joop