i would hope that the list managers do not claim the ultimate power to set
the rules as they see fit.
i prefer that they see themselves as facilitators, as proposing rules that
encourage the majority, ideally all members of a list, to feel at home and
comfortable enough to formulate challenges and risk being mistaken. the
list managers should also be forgiven for making mistakes if they are
willing to learn from them and propose changes to the rules.
where participation is voluntary, rules are only as good as members (and
leaders) are willing to interpret them.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Rosan Chow
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 9:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: rules leadership policing: ideas on how to keep the list
running
Dear Jean
thank you very much for taking the time and the apology. just want to
clarify something. and i will try to follow Lisa Simpson's style.
to me, rules are guidances and guidances are what leadership is about.
leaders are different from managers who are executives. execution is to
do with policy and policing.
the above is what i have in mind when i talked about rules and
leadership. and i never mentioned policing. although i did mention
power.
my personal view on the relationship between list owners, list members,
rules and policing is like this:
the list owners are the ultimate power in the sense that they set the
rules.
list members are the mangers who police themselves by the rules.
better?
i hope this discussion is going somewhere from here on.
rosan
Jean Schneider wrote:
But do you prefer a list in
> which all posts will be submitted to censorship (who is the author, what
> could s-he mean, etc...)? Personally, I don't. Personally, I prefer
> parties in which people don't anxiously ask you "what are you doing" so
> that they know how to normalize their interaction with you. In my view,
> there is very little noise on this list.
|