It's true that a formal constitution might be overkill, but will it hurt to talk things out that way? We're kind of an odd list in that we want neither moderation nor any one final arbiter of good behavior, but we also don't want to put up with bad behavior. It might be sufficient simply to agree that listowners don't have unilateral unsub/warning-to-unsub privileges, and let everything else go. But it seems to me to be a good idea to talk everything out, at least.
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, K Street wrote: > Is a constitution really necessary? I mean, this is a *mailing list* for > pity's sake. We're a small, self-selecting sample of educated people that > should be able to mind our own manners. The more rules we add in (for the > plebes, the listowners, or whomever), the less fun it gets. > > Let's keep it simple. > > Kevin Street > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Marvin Long Austin, Texas
