Print

Print


Herb Fox has agreed to be a backup co-owner. Any other volunteers,  
very much including you, Mandi, would be welcome.

Best,
Michael

On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Mandi Smallhorne wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>