 |
 |
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 >> >> >