Dear Virians,
I've done considerably more thinking about the nature and value of hierarchies and other political systems. I don't think my conclusions have changed any, but at least they are clearer in my mind.
I want to start the discussion again by pointing out that email is
already a kinocracy (rule by those who take action); i.e. only those
who write emails have any power or influence; and those who write more
or better emails have more power or influence. In this sense, we
*already* have a hierarchy defined by participation -- with
(apparently) Prof. Tim in the lead!
http://www.egroups.com/GroupTopStatsPage?listName=virus&show=topAuthor s
In all honesty, I do think that that list of writers reflects
something about the state of Virus and it's 'inner circle'. If you
sat down to write out who you think has been the most important for
Virus -- who the mailing lists best members are, it does come out
looking something like that list. Totally unsurprising, of course.
(one could probably derive the general result from memetics)
But what do we want to make of that? And do we need to formalize an inner circle?
Well, that all depends. Clearly, the above hierarchy is informal and 'natural'. If we choose to formalize an 'inner circle', I think that doing it on the grounds of participation (kinocracy) would work just as well as doing it on the grounds of 'personal induction' (where members who think they are ready announce that they are becomming members of the inner circle). Indeed, I suspect that the two systems would have the same result -- as those who participate more naturally begin to feel worthy of the inner circle (participation builds commitment)
PRO:
(1) Increased sense of responsibility for those in the circle --
membership could be used to motivate a conscious approach to email
writing, which would improve the overall quality and flow of the
mailing list.
(2) Members would model appropiate email behaviour for people new to
the list.
(3) The unofficial use of the list as an 'enlightenment' bringer for
new members could be made official -- by having an inner circle, we
motivate new users to learn about and acheive 'level 3' (or whatever
we call it) and the conscious approach, so that they too can become
members.
(4) The extra 'official' commitment to Virus might also spur some
action, in terms of creation of Virian artifacts and knowledge -- the
evolution of virus would speed up. (this relates back to voting on
important issues, if we decide that's cool)
(5) We could actually say that the Church of Virus has 'officially
registered' members! (not just people subscribed to the mailing
list...) This would perhaps increase our desire to actually
physically meet -- and such meetings would be very cool and
productive!
CON:
(1) Many people (especially the type we are trying to attract:
freethinkers) do not like authority memes or figures. Like Wade says
"Such a non-egalitarian heirarchy will cause me to flee." I suspect
this is the strongest reason against any official 'inner circle' at
all.
(2) There is a chance that members of the inner circle will go on
power trips, and Virus will stagnate into a cesspool of flamewars as
the 'inner circle' holds up orthodox virian opinions like the ten
commandments. i.e. Power corrupts.
(3) Creation of a structure independent of the members may cause us to
lose control of Virus -- e.g. once Virus becomes an actual meme-plex
existing outside of any individual, it will tend to evolve away from
what we want and towards perpetuation of itself. (is this actually a
"con", given the hoped for immortality of Virus?)
(4) Implementation problems have to be worked out. What kind of
recognition do members of the 'inner circle' have to recieve in order
to ensure the benefits listed under PRO? Will they have to "toot their
own horn" all the time, or can we find a less egotistic system? How
can we be sure that those who feel worthy (and then so declare
themselves) actually hold themselves to the standards that members of
the 'inner circle' should? e.g. how do we avoid 'bad' role models?
So how do the scales above weigh up? It is favorable? Not? Can we take a vote? (or do we need a structure to do so? :-)
Here's my opinion: *if* we can find an implementation system which solves the problems I mention under CON(4), I'm for it. Otherwise, we should stick with the current way of doing things.
Anybody got any good ideas for how to solve CON(4)?
ERiC