> 1. Make the archive public. Why would people join unless they can
> sample what they're getting into?
So they can read the archive.
> 2. Why moderate posts and also restrict subscriptions? That seems
> to be severe overkill. If you're willing to moderate, then let
> everyone join without screening them.
To be honest, I didn't think twice about this. Both of the email lists I'm on
which I really enjoy do this. It seems to work.
> 3. Tell us a bit about yourself. You're asking us to trust you with
> a certain responsibility but we know nothing about you. A search
> through the archive found only two posts by you previous to this
> one, both one-liners.
I was (and will be again, some day!) a student of comp sci and maths down here
in Australia. I did my thesis on discrete models of physics. Models, plural!
> 4. Give some examples of posts that you would let through and ones
> you would reject.
Reject, in increasing order of brutality:
- Anything copied verbatim where a URL would suffice
- Answers to questions that can be found with 5 minutes and an
- Questions with answers that can be found with 5 minutes and an internet
- Anything wildly off-topic
- Anything incredibly verbose
- Anything _obviously_ false, stupid, or trivial ("maybe knot theory has
something to do with gravity waves!!!! INTERESTING STUFF!!!")
- Anything painfully self-centered ("_my_ new theory of X can answer this
question so easily!! just look: (45KB of incomprehensible rambling follows))
- Most anything else
- Original ideas
- Drafts, fragments of papers and discussion, comments and criticism of these