On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Tim Churches wrote: ... > What we need are administrators who a) approve the membership of list > applicants and b) counsel or ultimately disable the member of those who > abuse the list of fail repeatedly to observe its rules.
Tim, I agree. I am against "list moderation" as well. In my Charter proposal, I said the Lead list manager will make decisions - which day-to-day will basically be what you outlined above. > Thus we need rules - a charter if you like Charter and List rules are entirely different animals. We need both. I would propose that we simply copy OpenHealth's List rules verbatim (excepting the Minoru disclaimer, of course), see: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg07122.html What do you think? ... > Perhaps some (simple) rules for deciding such matters (because they are > necessarily subjective) can be proposed - like Andrew Ho's charter, but > a bit less complex. I am all ears. Please spell out what you have in mind. > An elected triumvirate might suffice, with an interim triumvirate by > popular acclaim until the membership of the list is re-established, > perhaps with a rotating duty-roster to be first line admin/moderator. 1) How do you determine "popular acclaim" vs. "elected"? 2) How is this any different from what I proposed? [ see http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg10345.html] Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
