SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

July 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:30:00 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (119 lines)
What, no secret ballot?

I nominate Martha Livingston and Jonathan Campbell to co-moderate the list.

Mitchel



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.
>
>Best,
>Michael
>
>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]
>>Subject: Moderation
>>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.
>>
>>Optional:
>>
>>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. )
>>
>>
>>Best,
>>Michael
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play 
>now!  http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=club_hotmailtextlink1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2