What is "democracy"?

[Janet Rossini]

Quite, I read your long post just above as meaning "No, we are not going to become more democratic" and "No, we are not going to have this or future boards be elected."

Is that the correct interpretation? And if it is, is this the official position of the board, or your own position?

Thanks,

[Loris Talon]

Quite is your last post the offcial Board position?

Is it official that the board position is to reject my elections proposal?

I would like an official Board reply on the official LH group channel.

P.S.

I appreciated a lot the work of Carl and Tateru because I shared their vision of NCI, otherwise I would have left long ago.

[Quite Oh]

Quite, I read your long post just above as meaning "No, we are not going to become more democratic" and "No, we are not going to have this or future boards be elected."

Is that the correct interpretation?

Thanks,

First, I was asking the question to get an understanding of what OTHER people than myself meant by that. People use terms very loosely, and I find it wise to question what they mean to discern their genuine need. The response "No, we are not going to become more democratic" is loaded with presupposition and emotional charge rather than facts. As ONE member of the board, I make it my duty to see all sides of a question, and to share my point of view. If I'm not feeding back, then it's not discussion. If you make a statement, or ask a question, and if I hold the well-being of NCI highest above all, it is not my duty to fully explore it? Is it not as much my duty to probe your thoughts as much as it is yours to express them?

Second, to "No, we are not going to have this or future boards be elected.", I'm not in a position at to make an unequivical decision that should in fact involve everyone, especially all the members of the board. I simply don't have that authority.

I *do* have the authority to speak for Quite, and express *my* opinions as a member of NCI. I do have the authority and duty to ask very pointed questions and challenge the assumptions that are loaded in a question, as my own thoughts are being challenged.

That's how it should be.

Part of the whole communication and transparency thing is to be straight up. I was accused of waffling once, because I didn't have a clear answer at the time. I said that I needed time to find my voice, and I found it.

I put NCI's well-being above all. If that means that my personal opinions bug people then so be it, if it means that it's best to resign my position, so be it, if it means that we determine as a group that one form of management is considered, upon deep reflection, better than another, so be it. What I will NOT do, however is change my opionions to be viewed in a favourable light, or to make people feel good then do something else, or to act against my conscience.

If we both share the same goal, and I withhold questions because I'm afraid that some people don't like them, how am I serving you?

So in short, no, it's not the correct interpretation. The correct interpretation is "Quite cares as much about NCI as you do, and will fight tooth and nail for what I think is right, and will consider all positions. Note that I've not even taken a stand on the matter. I've offered opinions and asked a lot of questions. If you can prove, or convince the board that your thoughts are equal or superior to those that I'm presenting, I'm all ears and willing to advocate it. If not, then not." If your thoughts, questions and committments are strong, and stand up to the most assiduous inquiry, as I do my best to make mine, then they are certainly worth the discussion. But in the end *I'm* not the one who chooses, the board is and I'm only one of 11.

PS: The whole board reads these threads. If you think I'm wrong, challenge my thoughts. Convince me. Convince them. If you believe truly and deeply in your heart that your thoughts are a better way, then it's your duty to stand up for them. My challenges, questions and thoughts don't negate them any more than yours do mine. It's a discussion.

[Quite Oh]

Quite is your last post the offcial Board position?

Is it official that the board position is to reject my elections proposal?

I would like an official Board reply on the official LH group channel.

P.S.

I appreciated a lot the work of Carl and Tateru because I shared their vision of NCI, otherwise I would have left long ago.

Nope. See previous post.

[Afon]

The current board cannot make pronouncements like "No, we are not going to become more democratic" and "No, we are not going to have this or future boards be elected." as that would be pre-empting future board decisions.

The current board (which was largely put in place by Carl and Tateru due to our sharing of Carl's and Tateru's vision of NCI) has taken note of this idea and is something we may consider further down the line.

[Loris Talon]

Thank you, Afon, for your crystalline reply.

[Janet Rossini]

Afon, thank you for a clear though not final answer. To feed it back, I heard "we haven't decided anything about elections now, and we may take it under consideration in the future."

Quite, a new question for you: Could you please describe briefly what your role is as the board's PR person? From your postings here I'm having difficulty understanding it. Or is it that sometimes you have your PR hat on and sometimes not?

Thanks,

[Quite Oh]

Afon, thank you for a clear though not final answer. To feed it back, I heard "we haven't decided anything about elections now, and we may take it under consideration in the future."

Quite, a new question for you: Could you please describe briefly what your role is as the board's PR person? From your postings here I'm having difficulty understanding it. Or is it that sometimes you have your PR hat on and sometimes not?

Thanks,

Communications, specifically. And yes, I'm NCI first and Communications second. I should be more specific when I mix my posts. The way I see it as that I have an opportunity to let people know of the issues that might be handled at the board level that many may not be aware of. When Carl and Tat were running the show, we only got glimmers. It's my hope that by presenting what I can of what I know that people can have a clearer idea of what's going on, rather than thinking of "The Board" as a mysterious entity. That's the intent, anyway, and again, I should be more specific when I'm speaking in one role or the other.

[Beverly Montgomery]

I apologize for my little rants through this thread, I am new to speaking on forums, I admit!
I have a hard time with this, however, as I see people challangeing all of us, as they have since this all started. Maybe I dont quite understand.

Why do they want to challange us?
Why do they want to change what is being done?
Why do they want to perhaps cause more grief to us?
Yes we personally have had alot and I mean alot of grief through this!

Im seeing alot of words, alot of different openions, alot of accusations, comments etc etc!
But im not seeing why! Why did this even start? Why do these few people want us to do this?
I do know enough to know that if we say no, then ok hard feelings. If we say yes at this point, I would honistly feel "Bullied" into doing what they want! Honistly!

We've had plenty of that since this started! Both inworld, and in the forums. Its like all this talk, but no one is saying "why". Why can't we continue as we have for however long we have been doing what we have done for so long now prier and since the handoff.

No one wants to do what this group does! I know this. Most want to be in Secondlife socializing, haveing fun, exploring, shopping, creating, makeing friends, or as alot of us do helping new residents. Not many came in Secondlife to take on responsibilities, make major decisions that impact possibly a thousand people, keep schedules. They want to log in and log off when they feel like it. They dont want to say to their rl families, oh I can't make that birthday party because I have a "comitment to NCI" and I must be there instead. They dont want to give up their rl, for sl. Oh I know alot of people do, out of addiction, but they dont come here thinking that way. Alot of people still think of second life as a game. I dont! I never did!

And then there are some, that when things are tough, and we've been hard at work, trying to orginize, set up, get NCI running smoothly again, want to ad more stress to it, mix it up. Im trying hard not to call it Drama. But if it is then ok, I see it as some "Drama".

So yes I ask "Why" why are we haveing these discussions?
Why is someone, anyone shakeing it up?

I've been reading, listening, asking questions (yes I did) inworld. Ask Loris, I was curious! I've seen all this. But I've not seen anyone, not one person say "why".

Its true, and this is for example (if the bod says no, we do not want to do what you propose), then there would be alot of hurt feelings, and I feel that is what someone wants to be said, so then they can attack on another level. Saying then that we dont care, that we are unreasonable, etc etc etc.

Why?

Why not be here discussing some new way to help new folks! Why not spend this time and effort coming up with better ways of getting information to the new people, or better yet, instead of putting so much time in to shakeing stuff up and just get the hell off here, grab a new resident give them a tour of your favorite NCI location. Be sure they can open boxes, get dressed, wear hair and shoes.

But no we are here again haveing the same convo. I still wonder "WHY"! Why are we here!

I tried not to make this a stupid rant, like my other two posts. But I feel my Question is just as important as you guys feel your question is. Why? does anyone want to for some reason change the way it is right now. Why are the current board members not good enough that someone wants to vote on them? If we are who you would elect, then why the discussion?

Thanks for Listening! I hope I've made some sense here, and not sounded stupid!

Bev

[Trinity Coulter]

Beverly to respond to what you asked....

first, at least in this thread, Quite Oh asked the question because she said that people were asking for several things, including Democracy, and she asked the general members of the forum to help clarify what that might mean on a deeper level.

Listening to membership, and clarifying and discussing ideas are not and should not be construed as attacks.

You said:

Why do they want to challange us?
Why do they want to change what is being done?
Why do they want to perhaps cause more grief to us?
Yes we personally have had alot and I mean alot of grief through this!

For the most part in this thread I haven't seen personal attacks at all. I've seen people coming together to discuss an issue that is worth discussing, and we don't all have the same opinion, but I don't see anyone running out to either outright shut off dissent OR calling for anyone's head on a platter. Its been polite and professional.

I would hope no one in this group would do things because of bullies. I would hope that we are always able to work things out and at times come to polite disagreements. I know in the inworld meetings I personally have had good moments and bad, but like all of us, I'm human and I try and improve. But at least in this forum, I haven't seen anyone being bad or mean or anything like that.

It might help that instead of maybe perceiving suggestions from the membership as personal attacks, that it just be handled professionally, and let people consider it, and voice their 2 cents for and against, and the same with suggestions from anyone, whether they are your fellow board members or just some newbie running around SL.

Hope this helps answer some of your questions.