MD,
When we first began the programs they basically arose out of the
principles which was a point by point attempt to isolate the key
elements of the MOQ. It was an attempt to write a kind of
constitution as Richard Budd called it. It’s easy enough to say
that we need something like that, it just wasn’t so easy when we
tried to do it. It became impractical to summarize everything in
single posts, there was too much to get through, so we broke it
down into sections. I believe we started with the SOM vs MOQ,
then we had dynamic and static, then the four levels, and the
plan was to take each axiom at a time in a logical sequence.
Maybe it wasn’t the greatest idea in the world but I think it
was reasonably sensible and practical. The reason we didn’t
stick to this systematic method of choosing questions within a
framework was because we needed to get “buy in” from the group.
We did ran unmoderated programs within MD for a while
but they would just evaporate or wander off on tangents like all
the other threads did. It seemed to me that we needed to build
confidence in the idea that a mailing list could cooperate on a
project together, and the only way to do that was to
artificially force the topic to focus on the question -- which
is why we launched a separate focus group which could be
moderated. I actually, and in fact have always, seen this as not
necessarily a permanent measure. We’re basically trying to
invent a method of discussion on the internet that goes beyond
the free-for-all which you get on usenet and most lists. When
you go to a real life book discussion group obviously you talk
about one topic at a time. There’s no need for artificial
controls because it’s a social pattern which everyone
understands and buys into. If we can get to the stage where
everyone just participates in a program because it’s the usual
thing to do then I don’t think we’ll need to moderate anymore.
It was a good idea, but when the MF was launched and throughout
the past year it’s been plagued by accusations of mind control,
dictatorship … you name it. The committee members have been
placed constantly on the defensive. If we’d prescribed questions
in advance I didn’t think we would get enough buy in from the
members. I felt it was important that the members should have
some control over the group. A person who has voted for a
question is far more likely to take responsibility for answering
it than a person who feels that they have just been told to
answer it. Maybe I should have insisted that we set and follow
an outline first, but I had already taken shitloads of abuse for
the principles idea, and that would just have been blasted as
another example of me being a completely dreadful person.
I did also realise that this would lead to haphazard question
setting, but I figured that sooner or later everyone else would
realise this too, and then we would evolve onto something
better. I think if I’d forced it at the beginning I wouldn’t
have had any buy in from the rest of the group. I guess I have a
tendency to be a bit organized and constructive. I thought that
I was making other people feel usurped and it would be better to
be more passive for a while and let other people realize for
themselves what my concerns were. I have actually have suggested
it again since then, but it didn’t take off.
The biggest problem with the MF vs MD format at the moment is
that they aren’t complementing each other as they should. The
focus group ABSOLUTELY MUST be seen as existing WITHIN THE
CONTEXT of a wider discussion group. There is benefit from
focusing on a topic but that benefit is lost if it is not
subsequently incorporated back into the big picture. In a real
world discussion group you would focus on a topic for the
duration of the meeting, but there would also be dynamic
unstructured interaction between the members – before the
meeting starts, during breaks, social events, even just walking
home. Both types of interaction are important, it’s bizarre to
start pitting one against the other and start taking sides. Yet
that’s what’s happened here! Still, I continue to think that a
focus area is a good idea, but obviously we’ve got to make
sensible use of it.
It looks like now the time has come to rethink our structure and
that’s good. We don’t have to stick to what we’ve done before.
But please let’s not ignore it either. I hope that by explaining
some of the history of the group it helps everyone understand
where we’ve been.
Obviously older members get fed up rehashing the same things. So
we need a FAQ right? That’s what FAQs are for. Or maybe not a
FAQ like other groups but we need some kind of latching so that
we can move ahead. We could have principles or axioms or we can
call it whatever seems most suitable. We benefit everyone if we
can lay down some static patterns. We can refer newcomers to
them so that they can catch up.
HEY LOOK OUT!!! DUCK!!!!
Oops the accusations of dogma, just came at me from all
directions.
Answer. It doesn’t have to be dogma. It depends how it’s done.
When we talked about this before we thought of having more than
one answer to the questions. Eg, there are two schools of
thought on the subject, a says … and b says… , and we continue
to discuss the matter. Or even the general opinion is … but the
objections are …. And if anyone finds a fault in our answers,
well, blimey, we could change them, couldn’t we.
Refering people to the archives where a topic was discussed is
also a good idea. I think it would also be good to refer them to
specific books which can help clarify or offer an alternative
viewpoint.
There’s loads of stuff we can do, but we need some organization
in order to get it done. Inevitably everyone won’t agree on how
we organize things. So are we to be shot down by anyone who
isn’t 100% happy with everything? Or are we now mature enough to
accept say, 70% satisfaction for the sake of working as a team??
David’s suggestion of a chapter by chapter reading is good in
principle, but there are 36 chapters and I’m impatient, I also
think Roger is right that the MOQ builds like an onion. I would
rather do it by trying to create a general summary of the MOQ
first and try to isolate the key principles and areas of
contention. I definitely think that each area has to be closely
related to the text, perhaps picking out specific sections which
illustrate the topic under discussion. We could then take each
one at a time and then review them all at the end, or as we go
along even. Our objective is to do it as well as possible right?
We can invent any system we want and we can revise it any time
we want.
Creating summaries at the end is a good idea but we need to talk
about how to achieve this. We have always asked people to do
that on MF and nobody ever does. Obviously we need a better plan
for that. So let’s think of one.
Diana
___________________________________________________________________________
Get your hongkong.com freemail at http://www.hongkong.com
Free newsletters center at http://post4u.hongkong.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST