[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[Ant McWatt]

Ian,

>I hereby (have been trying to) propose ...

>(1) We use Gav / Rebecca's proposal to use MOQ Focus to compile
>contributions to an MOQ Primer [i.e. A Guidebook to LILA].

OK.

>(2) Editing contributions into an MOQ-Primer on behalf of the group.
>(Contributions considered to include the MOQ Focus posts above, plus
>Lila's Child, Guidebook to ZMM, MOQ Wiki, moq.org and robertpirsig.org)

I never had much time for wikipedias.  Academically, they just can’t be 
relied on as any clown can put forward his/her ideas on any topic.  It’s 
analogous to making a fifteen year old yob in charge of a public library or 
a university physics lab.  I also can’t see how – intellectually - an MOQ 
Wiki could add anything to Pirsig’s writings (and especially ZMM and LILA) 
that already exist concerning the MOQ.

However, if there is to be an MOQ Wiki which can be developed properly in a 
secure environment, I suggest it is done under the aegis of moq.org (i.e. 
open only to members of MOQ Discuss) with any changes/new entries to be sent 
to and approved by David Harding under the arms length supervision of Horse.

With such an arrangment, I can then see the possibility of a mutual positive 
exchange between the MOQ Wiki and the development of the Guidebook to LILA 
on MOQ Focus.

>I propose an initial balanced editorial team of three [for the Guidebook to 
>LILA].
>
>(a) Gav and/or Rebecca
>(b) Arlo Bensinger
>(c) David Harding

I note that David Buchanan has offered to “chip in” for the Guidebook to 
LILA and as he has a handle on the MOQ second-to-none, I propose that he 
should be on the editorial team if he so chooses.  I’m also sure Gavin _and_ 
Rebecca would be both happy to be on the editorial team simultaneously.  
That would make an editorial team of five.

Just another thought as David Harding could have his work cut out with the 
MOQ Wiki., maybe someone else would like to volunteer for that fifth 
editorial place for the Guidebook?

I would also happy to read everything through for final editorial say.

>Excluded from the (initial) editorial team - control freaks with too
>much “skin in the game” :-)

Ian, this is the kind of comment/attitude which isn’t helpful.  The “skin in 
the game” that I have regarding the MOQ includes a PhD and twenty years in 
academia.  To try and sideline this experience for a MOQ primer beggars 
belief.   I suppose it's a good thing I'm not a paranoid person because 
sometimes I wonder what the hell you are playing at.

>(3) Physical moderation of MOQ Discuss and MOQ Focus - Status quo.
>Horse moderates traffic according to basic rules of engagement, with
>any help he calls for.

OK.  It would also be good to hear what Horse thinks of this all.

>(4) Some issues to resolve.
>(a) Term of office of editorial team? indefinitely, or until the
>group defines the need for “elections”.

I think as Horse has found, volunteers are usually thin on the ground when 
work such as this needs to be done so I have a feeling that “elections” will 
be unneeded at least for the short-term.

>(b) Who is “the group” being represented - Only “members” who
>“sign-up” to the MOQ primer resulting from (3) above.

I’d say that “the group” being represented are the members of MOQ Discuss.

>(PS - Anyone who wants to express opinions about my motives in making
>this proposal, as opposed to the proposal itself, please try to
>separate their issues from the quality of the proposal. My original
>off-line proposal, actually a suggestion from another MOQ'er, was to
>compile the edited contributions via a “Friends of Quality”
>newsletter, but to the same ends.

I’d be happy to host the newsletter at robertpirsig.org.

>To make MOQ into something anyone could promote and build upon in the real 
>world in connection with real world issues. For whatever reasons that 
>purpose has been in danger of being misunderstood.

Well, considering you - as very much a newcomer regarding MOQ Discuss - 
write comments such as “Excluded from the (initial) editorial team - control 
freaks with too much ‘skin in the game’” what do you expect?  I’m half 
minded to tell you to go and bug the Church of England or the Freemasons 
with similar proposals and see how far that gets you.  (“Dear Her Majesty, I 
think this Archbishop guy has too much skin in the game…”)

More importantly, too much social institutionalisation around a Zen 
orientated metaphysics just isn’t a good idea.

Best wishes,

Anthony

_________________________________________________________________
Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live 
Spaces  
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features