See the ‘Convergences’ thread for details — and let us know if you’re thinking about joining the meet’n'greet!

Why I come to ROS:

(*) To listen to Christopher Lydon and his guests. Chris, the guests, and the ROS team do excellent work.

(*) To hear about unusual topics occasionally. Examples: Samba School, Convergence, John Updike, and Michael Brown: Three Act Play.

(*) To listen to and read discourse about topics (often intractable) which defy convenient description, form, and solution. Foreign policy, Economics, Religion, Race relations, etc. are low hanging fruit. Outsourced topics are great too.

(*) To participate with others in the improvisational integration between the forum and the show and the forum discussions.

(*) To maintain my amateur status, in all its glory and shortcomings, while enjoying the pros doing their radio/web chi.

(*) To have fun. This would be as tedious to define as something like ‘art’, ‘happiness’, ‘the meaning of life’. However, no fun = funless and blandful. :^)

What I’m *not* seeking here at ROS:

(*) To hear host and guests bludgeon each other or their audience. The respectful boundaries are eroding in many other venues. ROS has done well in this respect without losing passion and excitement.

(*) To hear from a constant stream of the usual MSM suspects or pundit class opinion makers. A good balance is struck between the orthodox pundits and unusual suspects.

(*) To change hearts and minds, though I try to keep my eyes, ears, and brain open. It’s not a perfect science. Minds often change slowly, even glacially.

(*) To compete.

(*) To create a false sense of territory petit and a desire to hold it. Nikos made an excellent point about this above.

(*) To do small talk. Only because of the clogging factor. I very much enjoy IRL friendly exchanges of pleasantries and small talk. Perhaps a solution can open this up a little.

(*) To antagonize or be antagonized. There are many other venues.

(*) To supress or be supressed.

(*) To seek validation on my comments. Not necessary, but always welcome. So are constructive critiques.

(*) To find perfection or anything remotely so. As a person who loves the mistakes, the blemishes, the rehearsals, the false starts, the dead-end, the do-over/retry, etc. this wouldn’t make any sense.

Obviously, ‘a’ is the more laudable. Less obviously, pontificating (which I do more than my fair share of) is a method of provoking the sorts of reaction that facilitate inquiry and enlightenment.

It’s also vexing as hell.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that both ends of this continuum ought to be understood so that we can enquire with less pontification, and yet provocatively opine with a minimum of vexatious arrogance. (Yes, I’m talkin’ ‘bout myself!)

Aside from this, I essentially throw my hat into the ring already drawn on the sand by sidewalker and babu.

But no word or posting limits, please.

More explicitly: No censorship of any kind — apart from the predicates of common decency and the politesse of mutual respect.

I’m here:

i) to further my knowledge: by asking questions and suggesting show topics

ii) to learn what other people are thinking about issues around the globe and at home that affect us directly and indirectly.

iii) to engage interactively in more thoughtful intellectual (mostly) discussions: to express my ideas and have them challenged

iv) for enjoyment: to be wowed, to smile, to laugh and (sometimes) to cry.

I’m not here:

i) to advance a cause, though I do propose, naturally, certain ways of looking at the world.

ii) to engage in chit chat or for bellicos and disparaging exchange.

iii) to meet new friends, though if that happens as an outcome of participation in this cyber community I welcome it.

iv) for entertainment, in a kind of pop-culture sense of the word.

v) for a top down reception of information.

I will keep thinking about it…

I wonder, as I ponder the questions/responses, if we could focus on Brendan’s last bullet point:

“And why is the community doing this? Can we collaborate to write a manifesto of sorts, an agreement on what the goals of the Open Source community are?”

Once we answer the “why”, it will inform how we feel about the other questions.

The most I’ve seen so far is that we’re all here for intellectual discussion. Is that it?

And, Brendan, what were you and Chris and the rest of ROS envisioning?

As with any group activity, it makes sense to flush out the mission, then a vision and then the how to’s. Anybody want to get this part of the exploration going?

I am against limiting posts for the time being but it is kind thing to prune your posts to it’s most essential ideas with few asides because others want attention and attention is limited. (I am being a terrible example of this right now I know and please skim without any guilt.)

The most important reason is, I feel, that limiting posts to an absolute when you are really trying to say or convey some things that take a little longer may inhibit some necessary or good points. People have begin posting “part one” and “part two” on another forum I check into because they literally cannot type beyond the allotted limit. I live with a writer and I can tell you that it takes much much longer to write something concise and perfectly. Within reason, we should strive for that. Maybe think a little more before posting,

Those who are inclined to post many long pieces should be aware that they lose our attention, or take advantage of it. Jon’s idea of dropping the font size further and further as one hit’s thresholds is interesting (and funny).

b>Jon Garfunkel’s idea of separate threads or channels for “live blogging” versus discussion before and after is interesting. As it is now however, you can sort of tell when we are “live blogging” and I think I like it the way it is. I am not for nesting because I think it will take away from the discussion. I would not be inclined to follow branches and would probably miss some good posts. What might work is having part of a very long post viewable, the rest you follow. But again I would rather not have a separate comments thread to each post (nesting).

On the other hand I would like to see a separate café hangout or “ behind the shedâ€? thread devoted to socializing or re-socializing if people would like to do that. If there are folks who want to meetup they can use this thread to make arrangements. Perhaps Brendan can with approval from the parties forward email addresses to those who do not want to publish theirs on the site. If there is some “working outâ€? that needs to be done regarding behavior— perhaps it can be done on this thread.

Brendan is there a way to edit with a preview and then maybe half an hour after one posts it’s permanent? That way you can check mistakes. No matter how hard I try, even using Mircosoft Word beforehand, I almost always make mistakes. Myabe I could work on not being embarrassed. We could forgive each other a priori.

Jon poses an interesting thought about handling more and more people: “scalability. I look to Haaretz. They have mandated short posts (you cannot type further than your allotment). What happens on that forum is that you get to know who you want to read and who you don’t. Since you have to click on the title of the post to read it there is competition for attention in the titles. These are comment threads based on various articles. Small conversational groups form and then there is some cross arguing. They say they are censoring, but there is little that I can see. What is wonderful however is hearing voices from all over the globe. This is what I would love to have here on ROS, a more thoughtful version though, voices from all over the country, then international. I think Nikos gets the feel of this in his excellent post above. http://www.radioopensource.org/on-forums/#comment-7440

Allison’s guidelines for engagement are right on the mark.

When Allison says: “So, with a core of folk who embody or refer to the ideal, we have little need for enforcement.� It echoes my own feeling that those of us who hang around here as regulars, who do so presumably because we are getting as well as giving, will be motivated to maintain a level of quality in the exchanges and so will have incentive to embody these qualities. This is not easy here or in real life I admit. I do not think that the motivation here would be less however, especially if one is benefiting from participation intellectually, finding commiseration, validation, and a form of friendship. Gradually this culture/ethic we cultivate and strive for will become stronger.

Allison’s guidelines again:

speak your truth, only your truth_verify to yourself that your words need to be spoken_speak with compassion (not condescension, compassion)

valuing diversity means valuing the person who is different from you (sounds obvious, but leads to:)_debate an idea, not a person (or, put another way:)_speak to a particular idea/action, don’t characterize a person_imagine the best possible reason/outcome for someone’s idea/action before you address the worst possible reason/outcome_ask yourself who benefits by your words_you may not like everyone, it is vital that you respect everyone

Allison says: �it is more of an exercise that I benefit from intellectually than a series of relationships that I experience�.

I agree but I would not say that these are not relationships of a sort. They are not nothing.

Allison again: “your words could be a complete misrepresentation of who you are IRL.�

After awhile I don’t think one can really misrepresent who they are. Each of us has a voice that is a reflection of our being, that is more than the words.

Allison: “In some ways, I don’t need to know. I enjoy what I get out of this.â€?

Me too.

Cheesechowmein says:

“Part of what I find so intriguing about the ROS forum is the trust of the community from Chris and ROS team. It shows in a thread like this, in the show comments, and in the show suggestions that there is some care and attention paid to allowing bottom-up contributions to complement the usual top-down approach. This is a flattening that lessens the hierarchical gap.

Instead of the artist losing power and control by exposing the process, we all gain a deeper grasp of the mystery of thinking and this for me is a beautiful thing. It makes the work even more monumental. The process illuminates the creative act as much as the produced idea or artifact. This is a huge part of the ROS attraction for me.�

I find myself wishing I could comment as I listen to other radio programs. I think this will catch on. It feels good to contribute. Coincidentally, David Brooks column (NYTimes 3/19/06) today talks about Plato’s division of the soul into three parts reason, eros (desire) and thymos (the hunger for recognition).

This is it, to be known, to have your deepest thoughts out there —but be anonymous at the same time. But I do not pause at Allison’s comments about this falling short of “real life�. I am not thinking this is or should be a real life community. That does not lessen my commitment to work to keep this a place where we can have respectful informed discussion.

I do not want to lose my anonymity because as CCM says there is value in not being encumbered by details about a person that are not necessary to the work at hand.

Nother to Allison: “I’m torn about having a meetup. Like I said, you could probably convince me of anything, so I definitely wouldn’t rule out going to one. It’s just that I feel so free on this site and I feel that my anonymity is part of the reason. Of course Chris and the gang are what inspire me most; it’s just that I thrive on people’s lack of judgment of me and my lack of judgment of them. I feel weighted down in life by how much we judge each other by looks, mannerisms, dress, age, ext. In our community, we judge ideas only – and that’s beautifulâ€?

Nother (great post) http://www.radioopensource.org/on-forums/#comment-7529

Nikos: http://www.radioopensource.org/on-forums/#comment-7540 “And it’s why I not uncommonly offer plaudits for noteworthy posts. I want everyone to know that thoughtfulness and time devoted to our collective illumination isn’t going unnoticed – and, especially – unappreciated.â€?

We would be much less without the glue of Nikos’ posts and praises. He’s the natural diplomat,the bridgebuilder, in these parts.

Nikos says “The ‘village’ paradigm must accept the possibility of heated feuds, including scorn – and therefore provide a method of corrective censure._The ‘college’ paradigm, however, would likely include the potential for the very same scorn, albeit conveyed in a chilly, impersonal and even imperious manner that might attract elitists while alienating others – others who, given the chance, might otherwise offer reams of enlightenment to the rest of us.

So, yeah, I’m advocating a sort of ROS that allows bumptious familiarity alongside formal collegiality, and verbosity alongside conciseness. And it’s worth mentioning here because the choices that Brendan and the gang might soon make in software could, even if by accident, favor one style of community over the other.â€?

I am for doing very little at the moment beyond emphasizing the guidelines and waiting to see how well we can embody them. When someone gets off track, then a little karma squad thing seems to happen naturally. We should be careful, however, about piling up lest we lose folks who we merely would like to reform a little. In some cases the loss cannot be prevented. People come with the flaws they carry in real life as well as their strengths. Patience and kindness is needed but when those flaws are disruptive you cannot ignore it.

Nikos: “It’s said that it takes a village to raise a child – and, in my case, it takes a village to make the local idiot into a knowledgeable resident.â€?

Amen. We are here to learn from what is offered and to offer what we can.

Nother: “I feel we should error on the side of less change. Many of the blogs I’ve checked out have a forum feel of computer people. ROS is so inviting because it’s so basic. Pick a handle, write your thought, click on submit – beautiful in its simplicity.â€?

Amen.

Plaintext: http://www.radioopensource.org/suggest-a-show-february-2006/#comment-7014

This poses some interesting questions about getting a more “conservative� POV represented. “Is ROS ever likely to attract_more conservative contributors?�

I was hoping from the beginning that ROS would not be intimidated by a perceived liberal bias that public radio and television has been accused of having. Polls do not bear this viewpoint out. Why be defensive? There is no question that Chris is liberal but he strives to understand consider and present the opposing viewpoints. I want to see/hear open consideration and articulate presentation. Bill Moyers was an excellent example in this area.

Plaintext: â€?It’s all good.â€?

Amen.

CCM: “Though I’m unable to describe the contours of my mind, I have found that inquiry has led me to “rediscover fire” at times and “reinvent the wheel” at others. These were extremely valuable experiences for me. On one hand the action is the important aspect, not the result. On another hand, the realization that I am often trudging along a very old and worn path (apologies to Eudora Welty) have led me to something akin to comfort and contentment. With rediscovery and reinvention, I come to a deeper awareness of both freedom and responsibility. I am unable and unwilling to deprive myself, nor others, of having this joy. In it’s strange paradoxical way this is a moment that allows for the possiblity of full connection across time and space with “the other” while fully actualizing myself as an individual. Something this powerful is to be cherised, not dismissed. I fully encourage anyone to allow themselves this valuable space within for learning. But to each their own devices.

This is not to dismiss listening. Listening is an extremely important learning device. This is why I enjoy ROS. There can be opportunities for helpfulness to shephard and mentor those coming up to speed. It is probably unavoidable, but there is a groundhog day aspect to some of this; I am unable to fully reduce ‘this’ to a more descriptive term. But I think ‘this’ is related to the grand ‘that’. Perhaps, this is not the first discussion among human beings to seek an understanding about how to structure their discourse. Any guidance is welcome’d by me, but not to the detriment of enjoying inquiry. In the spirit of courtesy, respect, and effectiveness, I will limit and reduce my public meanderings. I have already taken up an unreasonable allotment. In this regard, I will improve.â€?

Peggysue: “On the other hand I do agree with nother that it is nice to be valued (or reviled) for your thoughts alone without the cumbersome baggage of the visual impression and all the stereotyping that can go along with that. I don’t think of my fellow posters as disembodied word generators and would be curious to see you all but also respect your privacy enough to [not} feel that seeing you is not the most important thing. It is the exchange of ideas I value most.â€?

Peggysue �The thoughtfulness that has gone into the posts on this thread is I think a good illustration of why not to have word limits

Raymond: “I completely agree with JonGarfunkel who pointed out that lengthy and frequent posts affect the resulting discussion, that there are trade-offs. One trade-off I have often seen in group discussions involves those using many words with little meaning crowding out those using few but meaningful words. And I think this crowding out happens here.�

“The situation results, in my mind, because contributors place different values on blog space. Some view it as an unlimited, costless resource. Unlimited because, after all, actual space is largely unlimited. And costless because these contributors have considerable time to blog. Others view blog space as a limited, costly resource. Limited because it can be hard to find the dipole needle in the hay stack debris cloud. And costly because these contributors have little time to blog.�

“So I think some limit on contributions serves to put a common value on blog space by making blog space a scarce resource: something to be used with care.�

Amen, but I disagree with the ensuing proposal of a monthly word limit UNTIL that becomes obviously and unavoidably necessary.

Allison: “when you present yourself as something that you are not, there is a disingenuousness that bleeds into the integrity of everything. You are not speaking truth. You may have excuses – “I didn’t think you’d value my ideas if you knew” – but it is still not the truth. The power of it is diminished by this. Even if I don’t know the deception, the power is inherently diminished.â€?

True that is why one cannot get away with this kind of thing for long. I don’t think this is an issue here. Maybe I am wrong about that.

I’d like to propose a regular forum meeting/thread- perhaps once every three or 6 months to see how things are going and what needs to be changed.

I very much hope that I’m wrong about this, but I worry I’m beginning to sense a trace of territoriality lurking within this discourse.

I can think, off the top of my head, of three favorite contributors (who I respectfully will not name), whose posts are usually insightful, searching, and penetrating. Yet each of them, somewhere between one to four times out of every ten posts, contributes stuff that’s more meandering and obtuse than focused and crystalline. And so what?

You’ve got to accept the chaff along with the wheat.

None of us here are submitting this stuff for payment. And it would be easy to hold up anyone’s worst post as ‘an example’ of writing-in-need-of-an-edit. But what about the brilliant stuff from the same folks? Stuff that drops my jaw on a daily basis?

Now, because I’m always willing (however reluctantly) to play the bad guy, let me point out that everybody gets just as much access to the thread-space as I do.

You get as much ‘territory’ here as me or anyone else.

Are you feeling under-represented or that some of us take up too much space?

There’s an easy solution: Post More.

The floor at ROS is always yours for the taking.

The more, the merrier.

Should I arbitrarily restrain myself because I’m able in a half an hour, and twice a day, to type a 1,000-word distillation of my recent thoughts on the show-topic or a recent thread tangent, while others haven’t the time or practice to do likewise?

Your inability or unwillingness to post as frequently or as densely as I do is not my problem, or anyone else’s.

But hey, I’d love to be a less omnipresent voice amid dozens of others.

So, Post More.

The more the merrier.

A great example of why artificial limits would ruin the value of this place is the recent Israel vs. Hamas thread, where I dropped out halfway through because I was learning so much by reading the voluminous exchange between Potter and dc.

You really wanna arbitrarily limit Potter’s access to this site?

Are you sure?

Let’s put it this way: what I write in the box below ‘Nikos says’ is my thoughts, written in my style (which sometimes varies in verbosity from one hour to the next) – that box is my ‘territory’. Although it doesn’t much bother me, I don’t appreciate being ‘graded’, but, much more importantly:

I don’t want my favorite contributors cowed away from their patterns of contribution by worries that critics out there resent the frequency or density of their posts.

I want to read them.

Even their less persuasive stuff.

Even their introspective stuff.

I don’t care if their stuff bothers others.

Hey, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.

If you’re reading it and it doesn’t seem to make its points effectively, fine, then skim it – or skip it.

Once we start it, where do we stop editorial critique?

Shall we install software that blocks flowery use of adverbs and adjectives next?

Then after policing our writing styles – how we write – shall we begin policing what we write?

Put a screen on ‘humanistic’ or ‘democratic’, and you’ll successfully block 60% of my recent posts, and maybe more.

Does my presence offend by its frequency? (And are you sure this isn’t more ‘territorial’ than you realize?)

Post More.

Don’t ask those of us able and willing to freely contribute our time to this venture to give you a bigger footprint by running away. (Although please know that several of us regulars consciously do limit our contributions. It might not seem like it, but I do, and I know, by missing their pre-established presences, that others do so too.)

I’ve gained immeasurably valuable knowledge from this site precisely because I’m willing and able to contribute, and then carefully absorb and evaluate the reactions my posts garner.

And when someone like Potter is illuminating without any feedback from ignorant ol’ me, I happily sit back and simply read.

Post More.

Especially you newbies.