Occupy Underground

It could work, but again I think these types of decisions would have to be done quickly. Like I said I'm no expert at GA procedure, or with the inner workings of groups. Going with your suggesting though, how many hosts should the group have? (less = more authoritarian, but quick results whereas more = better representation, but slower) For instance, 5 hosts could gain a consensus faster, but only IF they respond quick enough to a mic check and weigh in, 9 hosts would would allow for a quicker consensus. I'm assuming in the spirit of expediency that a SOP violation would (must) have something like a 1 hour (or hopefully much less) to reach that consensus.

Part of my original '2 cents' was based upon the notion that we have (say) 5 hosts who are well respected, liked and trusted. But of course even I acknowledge the potential hazard with that. (I don't have these concerns with less contentious subject groups). But our very existence as a group puts targets on our backs. We all know how withering, relentless personal attacks can crush an individual, and there will be withering, relentless attacks trying to break our group too, as the spring and summer roll on to the elections! Having (say 7 or 9 hosts) that were mic checked might be able to respond within a 1/2 hour time limit because there'd be more of them logged in 24 hrs/day. I honestly also don't know how many reliable hosts our group could muster or sustain

But hey, I'm easy going, so lets see what some others can (and should!!!) put forward.