The Great Forum Storm of '09

I finished my giant set of replies regarding the Online Community storms. I won't paste all seven pages of text here, so if you'd like to learn more, I suggest you go to:

http://www.community.us.mensa.org/forums/t/15521.aspx

Forums Terms of Service

The moderators are working to rein in the toxic members and get the overall spirit of camaraderie back in the AML Online Community. So obviously, we're had lots of discussion about the TOS and how to interpret and apply it.

In a perfect world, it would be short and sweet and clear:

Don't be a dick.

I wonder what would happen if I really wrote that into the formal TOS document?

Getting picked for AMC Committees

RR opined on a semi-public elist recently:

Having been on the "old" AMC and "new" AMC, I can comment on group think. First, the AMC has changed in how it is run behind the scenes. It has added an absolute ton of committees, and their pronouncements have become almost sacrosanct. If you are not on the committee (and the committee chairs hand pick their members), any objections you have don't count. I suppose this streamlines things as it blocks dissent. If I sent in a recommendation privately, I was told, "We are already working on that. Go away". This same attitude carried over to the private AMC e-list. If you are a "good soldier" type this is wonderful. If not, the door is shut. The "old" AMC allowed any AMC member to join whatever committee he/she wanted, allowing dissenting opinions.

I'd just like to point out that I have never turned down anyone asking to be on one of the committees I've chaired. As for hand-picking, I'd say that half of the people on my committees were picked for me by ASIE or by requests from the AMC chair. That's fine- I can work with anyone. I do, however, dislike filling committees with mostly AMC members, since to me the point of sub-committees is to get more members involved. As for allowing dissenting opinions, hah! That is exactly the reason I keep Dan Wilterding on my committee! Other committee members I am pleased to work with include Mike Eager, Jared Levine, and Brian Bloch--hardly people known for non-dissent.

RR never asked to be on any of my committees. I wonder which ones interested him that he was turned away from.

Looking at AMC voting patterns

What a fascinating exercise!

I decided to go look at data to evaluate the accusations of Groupthink on the AMC. I went through the minutes of all the AMC meetings starting with July 2007 through November 2008. The March 2009 minutes are not available yet.

I made a big spreadsheet recording everyone’s votes on motions. I ignored all the consent agenda stuff and motions like thanking the local group for hosting, etc. I included or substituted motions which were amended during the discussion.

The really contentious votes were: Limiting ExComm powers 2007-075, Sending the RVC replacement problem back to committee for more refinement, Revising the nominating process, Approving the vision statement 2007-086, Paying for the consultant (a very close vote!) 2008-017, Decreasing the # of CSubs 2008-018, Having AML handle the AG finances 2008-021, and Deleting or defining calumny.

The following 5 AMC members were never on the minority side of any vote: Ken, John S., Scott, Heather, and Peggy.

The other 15 members, Nick, Jean, Dave, Cyndi, Dan, Ralph, Clark, Leah, Bob, Lori, John R., Maggie, Greg, Elissa, and myself all had one or more motions that didn’t go the way they wanted.

So what I see here is lots of agreement, but not a pattern of resistance to voting against the pack.

When three quarters of the body is in the minority at some point, I cannot see this as evidence of "going along to get along."

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: agreement does not equal Groupthink. Agreement indicates that a group is working together to reach compromises that will please most members of that group, which, in my mind, is exactly what we should be striving for.

(and if anyone wants to see my spreadsheet, you can down load it here )

MIL Election

Lots of surprises in the MIL election results. One of the biggest in my mind was the numbers of members who voted from each country. According to one person who claimed to have been a vote count observer, Americans cast only 890 votes. British Mensans cast 1,420 votes, Germans 397, Dutch 330, and the remainder of the 3,790 total ballots came from the other twenty or so countries. Oddly, no votes came from Australia.

I wonder why Americans chose not to vote.

Just something to notice

There are 38 members currently (well, as of my posting this) logged into the AML Online Community. When was the last time your local group had that many members gather for a weekday lunch?

food for thought....