On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Erik Reuter wrote: > > 1b. Maybe have one or two rotating list manager positions so that anybody > > interested can try his or her hand at the job, and to prevent burnout for > > the more "permanent" list manager(s). > > How would the managers be chosen? Sure, anyone can be one, but at > any given time, WHO is a manager? It sounds like you are going to > have to get into voting. Kind of like voting for court justices. Maybe > that would work, but it seems heavy handed to me.
Existing list managers choose new or rotating ones from the pool of volunteers. I can't say I expect them to be overwhelmed with offers...but maybe anyone interested in helping in that respect should raise their hands now, to prove me wrong? (I'm not volunteering, btw, not yet anyway.) If a list manager becomes noticably lax or abusive, then the Wrath of the List (tm) form of demarchy will provide sufficient feedback. > The Agglomerated Aphorisms. I like this idea a lot. Thanks. An agglomeration of aphorisms is much harder to wield as a blunt instrument of self-justification, IMO, than a set of formal rules. (Not impossible, just more difficult.) Marvin Long Austin, Texas There ain't no Devil; there's just God when he's drunk. -- Tom Waits
