What, no secret ballot?
I nominate Martha Livingston and Jonathan Campbell to co-moderate the list.
At 04:56 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote:
>You have my vote.
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Should I replace George as co-owner?
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:39:45 -0700
>Dear SftP list members,
>If you approve, I am willing to take on the task of list "co-owner."
>George Salzman, who did so much to found this list and increase its
>membership has asked twice now to be relieved of the burden as "co-
>owner," which means, in essence moderator. I am grateful he
>has reinstated Michael Balter, though I was critical of the way
>he removed him in the first place.
>A while ago, in response to George's first request, I offered to be
>moderator, but most who responded did not want a moderator. In
>the light of that, and subsequent events, I want to make clear that
>I would try to avoid censorship of any sort, unless a clear
>consensus forms that someone is doing great damage to the list. The
>only exception would be clear emergencies.
>I am forwarding my original moderation guidelines unchanged, but
>want to make clear these would only be guidelines, not rules. If I
>note violations, I would suggest to the violator(s) that maybe
>they could modify their posting habits accordingly. I would be open
>to further suggestions as to how to improve these guidelines, of course.
>Herb Fox is willing to be a more passive (yet) co-owner, ready
>to jump in if I flag overmuch.
>Anyone else who wishes to be a candidate should let us all know.
>Begin forwarded message:
>>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: June 5, 2007 11:56:45 AM PDT
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <SCIENCE-FOR-THE-
>>[log in to unmask]>
>>I am willing to be one of several people taking turns
>>moderating, but I would rather start my turn in about three weeks.
>>Here are the ground rules I would propose to use:
>>1. A maximum of four posts per person per day, of which no
>>more than two can be on the same topic or thread. (This will allow
>>for the Phil's posts of articles.)
>>2. Respect for other's viewpoints in replies. If one can find
>>no basis for respect, either one is very far out on a limb or
>>enough others will feel the same that no reply is required.
>>3. Germaneness to the list. Does this post have to do with
>>science? Does it have a connection with a left perspective, loosely defined?
>>4. Originality. Does the post say something that has not been
>>said within the last couple of months, at the very least?
>>5. Some respect for the intelligence and knowledge of the
>>average group member in each post.
>>6. No blanket condemnations or personal attacks.
>>7. No posts whose point is to argue that one's particular
>>version of leftism is better than someone else's.
>>8. An urge that everyone exercise self-restraint. Despite
>>the limits of four post per day, most people should post far
>>fewer, probably no more than one every few days.
>>9. Moderators should encourage the practice that each post
>>should try to offer a constructive alternative to what is
>>being criticized, for example a sounder policy about vaccinations
>>or how drug innovation should properly occur.
>>10. Moderators should encourage the practice of humility in
>>the form of posts. It is an open question as to what would
>>truly constitute "science for the people" or even how to bring
>>about a better, fairer world. We have more questions than answers,
>>and that is appropriate to acknowledge.
>>If no one else is willing to co-moderate, I would urge everyone
>>to try to follow these suggestions (perhaps a smodified by others)
>>for the time being anyway.
>>(In the meantime, for those who find the last few
>>days entertaining, I suggest somene start a new list:Vituperation
>>for the People. Each post would at least have to explain why the
>>poster deserves to be on that list but someone else does not. )
>Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play