From: eero@sofi.su.se
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:57:33 -1816
To: revs@csf.colorado.edu
Subject: reentry and reinvention
To all,

The changes described in "Reinventing REVS," though interesting enough for me
to want to observe in practice, don't really address the democratic problems
which I raised in my next-to-last posting.  The moderated list is open to demo-
cratic accountability insofar as the possibility does exist for everyone who
is interested to see what kinds of postings are being left in or out.  But I
still do think that the possibility of entirely excluding people from either
of the new lists should exist, and still have doubts about reentering an
"electronic community" lacking in sanctions of this kind.
	This of course presumes that internet networks can be regarded as a
kind of political community or association which can have its own rules and
democratic procedure, including procedures for "loss of citizenship."
This of course may not be a viable point of reference.  Rodney Coates' comment,
posted to me separately, indicated that one necessary complement to majority
rule on REVS would be protection of minority rights, which I think is
correct--at minimum this would entail some kind of procedure of appeal, but
it's not at all clear what would be an appropriate authority of appeal.  Again,
if such a set of rules is at odds with the US Constitution already from square
1 (which makes the Constitution a deeply flawed document), or if there are
other obstacles which can't be overcome, it would be good to see some wide-
ranging discussion around these topics.
	

Regards,
Eero Carroll