Print

Print


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.
Mandi
----- 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-
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 exampl
e
> >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
>
> __________ NOD32 2372 (20070703) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>