Don't you think there should be several co-owners? George got landed with
this because of no response from one co-owner, for whatever reason. I think
there should be four people (maybe five, but that might be pushing it) with
the hot button, as that would mean you're unlikely to get one person alone
in charge at any time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Should I replace George as co-owner?
> 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-
> which means, in essence moderator. I am grateful he has reinstated
> Balter, though I was critical of the way he removed him in the first
> 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
> that, and subsequent events, I want to make clear that I would try to
> censorship of any sort, unless a clear consensus forms that someone is
> doing great damage to the list. The only exception would be clear
> I am forwarding my original moderation guidelines unchanged, but want to
> make clear these would only be guidelines, not rules. If I note
> 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]
> >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
> >of articles.)
> >2. Respect for other's viewpoints in replies. If one can find no basis
> >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
> >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 exampl
> >a sounder policy about vaccinations or how drug innovation should
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >but someone else does not. )
> Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!
> __________ NOD32 2372 (20070703) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.