Open Letter to So Many Anti-Government Whiners

The Meeting sounds alot like the UN.

My own intentions are to provide a national voice to local politics. And to create a benign body to - productivly - occupy the current void. And, finally, to equalize the voices of the small special-interest groups with the voices of the largest of the popular groups.

This model has, as a major tenet, a requirment that every single word uttered in its earshot will be published in public.

No officer (?) of the Meeting has a permanent position - or salary - and every officer is chosen by the meeting from the reps attending. Each is approved unanimously. every representative is subject to recall on the spot by the members of his own group.

I admit that there is no way to protect against Linden interference if it takes place behind the scenes in private. But that would be up to the King and is clearly one of the many powers he retains.

There's no way a player-government can have any effect on the Lindens, unless it's through public opinion or collective bargaining.

The idea of a government is stupid cause you can't govern. The Lindens are in charge. It's their playground so you'll play their game.

Well, one thing is different. I have had LOTs of good input. And it's clear that there ARE a few people who think it migh tbe possible to excersize local and national politics in SL without jackboots and zebra crossings.

Even if this fails to develop, there is at least a precedence for talking CALMLY about the possibilities

I agree. I propose a body where all officers are approved only for the time from one meeting to the next. And, as one may have intuited, I strongly believe that we should REFUSE any attempt of the Lindens to give us power over another player's account, or their access to the game.





Agreed. And I'm glad to see that even the King has largely restrained himself from such judgments. On the other hand, there have been several situations where heads have fallen.






My guess is that the Lindens aren't too picky about what they classify as "self-governing." I Think they've given us the Group tools and intend to leave the rest to us to puzzle out. That's one of the reasons I put the Groups at the base of the new branch. The Groups hold the primary political legitimacy in Second Life.




I can't think of a more self-destructive idea than trying to finesse the people who control the electricity

Ice, the current model only represents those who choose to participate. And, it is only composed of Group representatives. It isn't a council form of government - it hasn't the ability to enforce any laws.

There are a few summations I've typed up back a couple pages.

The model I've described has no room for for hierarchy. There are only the representatives from each Group, and the people who collect the information and publish it. Each meeting the people who show up pick someone to be acting facilitator - she's the person who says "Thanks for your presentation, ________. The next speaker to place his name on the schedule is ________."

This person's reign ends at the opening of the next meeting.

The secretary is also picked each meeting. Each of these appointments is subject to objection by any of the representatives. The "minutes" are really the chat log. (This is the last time I'll refer to them as such, since I'm not even sure it's proper for the Lindens to post chat logs from the Town Halls.) Since every bit of the meeting is in public, there is never any shortage of alternate logs to check against. The secretary's job is to save, copy, and post the minutes (log). He also collects and posts all the presentations from the reps. If a rep has a different version, or a correction, or just thinks the secretary is shorting him, then he can have his own copy posted alongside the "official" version. If he is suspicious of the facilitator TOO, then he can read it into the chat log - er - minutes.

There is actually no point where the Meeting has to "pass" on anything the representatives have to say. If you want to make a speech into the record, just have your Group send you to the Meeting, and speak your piece.

There is no extra structure to take advantage of. The whole idea is simply to give Groups a place to speak where they are equal to each other and assured of being heard by the entire world without having to compete with any other group or collection of people in order to be heard.

It is also a place where representatives can discuss topics that might concern them universally. They can petition the Lindens as a unanimous group, if they feel the need. If they send a message to the Lindens, it is sensible to expect that the Lindens will answer them as a collective - in public. Given that all motions must be approved unanimously, this kind of petition is bound to be rare, but is certainly possible. And, even if the Meeting itself doesn't present a petition, it is fair to assume that the Lindens will read the group presentations - and will answer those that request and answer.

This model has no "up top." There is nothing between the Group Representatives and the Public, or the Lindens. And, since membership is voluntary, and fluid, there is no compulsion to show up, if your unhappy with the way the job is being done. Your group does not have to send a rep if it feels there is no benefit in doing so.

If the Meeting doesn't earn the trust of the groups, then it isn't likely it's going to have the ear of the Lindens either. And, sine power rests only in the hands of the Groups and the Lindens, there isn't much point in the Meeting trying to short either one.

remember, there are no permanent members of the Meeting. All terms are one month long (or however long there is between meetings). All reps are subject to recall by their own groups.

And the Meeting has no revenue. There are no taxes, fines, or grants from the Lindens. If the Groups have a need to fund any sort of program at the national level, the funds must be given by the groups to the people who are going to do the work. This plan must be spelled out in detail, listing the workers and the costs BEFORE the UNANIMOUS approval of the project. The project must be time-limited and all expenditures detailed before approval. No money will be handled by the Meetings officers, nor by any ancillary committee.

In other words, if you want ti hire Shadow to design a public work, you need to get the exact time, schedule, and cost from Shadow, present it at the Meeting, have someone ready to pay for it, and pay the money directly to Shadow. You could do this all outside the Meeting, as well. The OBNLY difference in the process would be that the meeting would not have approval, and the arrangement would not be heard by the meeting - or publish it.

You are sure welcome to build whatever you like and give it to the public if you like.

If this is confusing, here's the simple version: The Meeting has no money, no budget, no spending power, or fiduciary capabilities.

No money, no power, no corruption.

That is a GOOD question!

If you manage to get represented by the WWIIOLer rep AND the LLLer rep, then Good for You! Thanks for being so civic minded and contributing so much time and energy to our world. it's good for you to contribute your energy and skills to more than one group. and it's fine that each of your interests is represented at eh national level. People should here about each of your groups' activities and issues.

Wait. What if you actually get chosen as a representative by more than one group? That's fine too! The Meeting is not a voting body, so there's no concern about one-vote-one-person. And you're not speaking to the Meeting as "Rose". you're speaking as "The representative from the SL Swordswollowers Group" on the topic of "Why we feel that all prims should be machine sanded before rezzing."

If you step up to the mic a few minutes later as a rep from the SL Alligator Owner's Group with a speech on inworld wetlands, then that's just fine. Since you are simply carrying the concerns of the Group to the Meeting, there's no reason you can't carry two.

Remember: this model does not include voting. So there is no danger that you'll get to vote more than you ought.

Another good question.

As far as the Meeting is concerned, only Group representative are heard. the group has been designed to be the unit of governance by the Lindens. If there is a better way, then we should talk about that, but for now, it's a done deal. The Group is the active governing unit.

In this model, that unit is treated with strict autonomy. However they want to do business is completely up to them. Including choosing a rep. And including how they decide membership.

If a person wants to be heard by the collective of Groups, he'll have to deal with a group to do so. Now, that being said, there is no restriction from the Meeting about the nature of the group. I suppose there is room for a group dedicated to speaking for those who are not members, yet petition that group to speak for them. If that happens, then it happens. I would expect - since each rep will have to present his certification, which should include the name and description of his group - that people will know how to process that group's presentation.

Personally, I'd have no problem. You may prefer to ignore their presentation if you like.

At any rate, that group would still have to have a minimum number of actual members who sign his certificate. what they choose to say at the Meeting is up to them.

This body is to represent the Groups. Not the individual. Individuals can access all the tools already in use - and any other the Lindens put in place. None of those are being taken away.

It is not simply a method of passing information to the Lindens. it is a place where groups can present what concerns them - or excites them - the most. It's published for the world to read, and the Lindens are absolutely expected to read it as well. Items addressed to the Lindens specifically should be expected to generate a reply from them.

The Meeting may also discuss issues that concern the reps. It may also move to communicate with the Lindens or the Public as a unanimous collective. Again, the Lindens are expected to respond.

Of course, that's up to the Lindens. But I can't imagine that they wouldn't take advantage of this focal event. It's so efficient, and so full of community good will.

There is nothing that prevents each group from bringing up exactly the concerns and issues with tools that you mention. In fact, the benefit of the Meeting is that their concerns are heard by everyone.

I think the UN has money, troops, voting, doesn't have equality between the countries, allows a small group to silence the rest, and isn't listened to by anyone anywhere.

Sort of the exact opposite of what I'm proposing.

You are too kind. One can only hope that someday one will have the eloquence of Thoreau coupled with the passion of Emmerson and the insight of Ayn Rand right...and I like you in the same sort of love ya like a sista kinda way

I must say though that the lot of you make me proud. I am dizzy with reading all of the info but at least it is informative. Kathy you are a gem! I may not want player based government but damned if I wouldn't like to see you running for office. At the very least I would know that my questions would be met with a thoughtful, genuine and articulate response.

So Bravo to you all!!

Excellent answer! I love it.

~Ulrika~

Kathy, if you are going to use existing groups this effectively means that if I did not wish to be represented in this way, I would have to delete membership from any or all of them if they decided to participate.

Could not new groups be created, for example 1 per sim, or are you concerned that insufficient numbers would opt to join?

Alexa

Alexa, I am convinced that there will be many groups that do not choose to participate. It’s completely voluntary. And it’s not an either-or thing anyway. Your group may choose to never send a rep, or send a rep once to talk about one worrisome issue, or send a rep every single month.

The idea of creating groups specifically for representation at the Meeting – as a substitute for another Group – seems kind of contrary to the purpose. The purpose is to give real Groups a place to speak and meet and discuss those things that affect them locally. If we try to create special regional groups instead, I suspect there would be little to talk about. There’s apt to be a lot more happening in a vendors’ group than in a group created just because Boardman is a sim and all the other sims have one.

On the other hand, there’s no reason not to create a Boardman group if they have other reasons to do so, or if they have issues to share with the Meeting.

It would just be counter-productive to substitute a system of artificial geographical groups instead of promoting the current system of Groups, which already have a base of interest.

Thank you Kathy, again being the devils advocate here the only thing I forsee that may become a big issue to the actual organization of this is communication.

Here is why, we have seen minutes from town halls and many other organized events and all chat from those meetings are included which at times becomes very hard to follow when the information is being exchanged between the key speaker and the populace at large.

Again as you know I am against any 1 player having rule over another within the confines of Second Life for any reason. Even with that said I do believe that LL needs to provide at least one Sim designed as a Meeting Hall of sorts for representatives.

Why do I say that I am looking at the aspect of a genuine topic being discussed. The inane banter that goes along with such a massively organised meeting considering the current communication methods in SL are staggering.

So Id say to be honest Kathy a Meeting Hall where through scripted booths and such each member can have an opportunity to speak without the clutter of additional speach around to cloud the issue. Its not a dampening of anyones opinion mind you but a method to allow speach and conduct the events with a form of respect.

I think this would be something you would need in order to conduct business and it would be a neutral zone as well controlled by the Lindens.

But again thats just me rambling after a nights rest.

Shadow

I'm still curious about one point.

Following your ideas (I read them all and didn't find an answer - but I could have missed it), will a group or persons who choose not to participate still be bound by the new rules/actions/decisions of the groups who do participate? If not, how do you distinguish between players who participate and players who don't?

Camille, Im not Kathy but from my understanding her organizational attempt is merely a representative organization for groups to voice concerns about bugs and other inherent problems.

Unfortunately the theology in its creation is based on unproven speculation that certain players have the Linden's ear.

However, a Unified voice like what Kathy is proposing would affect change within the entire world of SL because then this organization would have bent LL ear in their direction.

So as I stated earlier the best method is either participate actively or atleast stay abreast of issues being forwarded by subscribing to the minutes of the organization. Why? as an individual or group it would be in each ones best interest to stay in touch with what is being proposed.

I hope that helps by knowing what my interpretation is.

Sincerely, Shadow

No. None of the Meeting's decisions or statments are binding on anyone. They may be compelling to the Lindens because they have our best interests at heart. And they may be compelling to the Groups because they think they sound reasonable. But, otherwise, there's nothing to force anyone to act on declarations from the Meeting. Only civic mindedness.





No need to. The only distinction is really: Who is speaking and what did they say? If someone doesn't belong to a group that wants to be represented, or their group doesn't send a rep, or the rep doesn't submit a speech or presentation, then they aren't heard or published.

There is never a need to make sure every citizen is represented, because there's no voting. This body is a place where Groups can represent themselves by speaking. There's never a danger in not participating,

Then aside from it being meetings of people which we can do now, I still don't see how it would benefit anyone. I see it as another layer through which to try to get through.

Exactly. It is just a meeting of people. And we can do it now. I guess I'm saying "Let's do it now."


And remember, this is not a layer between us and the Lindens. None of the other paths are blocked or hindered in any way. Anyone can carry on with business as usual without paying one whit to this body.


I bet this would all make more sense if you had one definitive description of the whole process. Right now I'm trying to wrangle the 25 pages of stuff I've generated on this issue into a couple pages that give all the details I have so far. I'll publish here on the forums when I get it finished. It may help a lot to move it to a thread with a friendlier title. Of course, it will also generate another fight or two, but I guess that's Life (2nd).