Kevin is not a “self appointed moderator”. He is the chair of the Open Government Network, which is responsible for this mailing list.
One man has power to delete opinion he does not like. That is not trust. that is not debate. That is not a forum where we talk about what we should do together because one man has already decided. Scientific debate and open challenges and different opinion are important.
Please can someone explain how people not mentioned on these lists can post to this forum? (I’m in the Scotland list.)
Perhaps the clue is in the word ‘open’.
Many thanks
Bruce Ryan
I suspect this is not an open forum but is an echo chamber where a certain moderator will delete opposing views.
I’m another ‘lurker’ (as defined in another thread). I’m not sure what I’m doing here but would prefer to hear views that I disagree with. Does the word open have different meanings when paired with democracy or minded?
2 Likes
In my view, any posts which are ranty, disrespectful towards other network members and shouting views rather than trying to engage in conversation and debate, are strong candidates for being hidden.
You dont think describing someone as ranty is disrespectful? If you had suggested foul language or personal attacks, I might agree. But ‘ranty’ is a judgemental single view. Citizens are rightly passionate about many subjects and that is a good thing. Please stop shutting down voices that oppose your views. Just looks like mysogeny.
Guys,
Could we have a discussion about what and who this forum is for, how it’s designed, who is responsible for growing the community, and how it is supposed to complement/collaborate with the other domains/projects run by steering group members.
Kevin, you know Ive attempted to address this already by my email to you (and below) on the 7th Nov, which focussed on Involve’s attempts at Open government, Democracy, and Participation and Engagement, Networks.
carly@involve.org.uk,
paul.braithwaite@opengovpartnership.org,
DemocracyNetwork@involve.org.uk,
james@involve.org.uk,
chloe@involve.org.uk,
tim.hughes@opengovpartnership.org,
blair@accountabilitylab.org
I have no idea what Mum said. 20 years ago it wouldn’t have mattered. People were far more tolerant. We always had “naughty rooms” where the untameable were directed and often stayed because they and their “weird” mates related differently than risk-adverse bureaucrats or schoolmarms. we wont agree with what many people say but they have a right, and a place, to say it.
That said, Let me be civil and honest. By any measurements of useful media;
- this forum is a failure. 387 members in 7 years?
- the democracy network is a failure. Connecting the 900+ organisations working on issues of power, democracy and voice in the UK. With 101 Followers?
We all consider OUR culture normal. We all make mistakes.
That’s OK, as long as we admit them, tolerate and learn from them.
So can we move on and redesign UK democratic networks to be inclusive?
With a bit more tolerance? PLEASE.
Bruce,
To answer your question.
Just the way the programmers set it up in the first place.
It is open source.
The graphic design, as you can see, appears as the UK, NI. Scot and Welsh as equal forums. which really doesn’t work. The UK should be the umbrella with the others sub forums. So it seems the comms is designed so that anyone can post on any forum.
I guess the JOIN on each forum is there so, if there were any community managers, they’d get to know their audience. Unfortunately, apart from the Scots OGP secretariat (Neisha), who direct their forum’s readers to the official minutes of meetings between government and civil society members - using this domain as their civil society outreach - there are no other UK community managers who bridge between other UK governments and their civil societies.