Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 2 Oct 1994 10:30:00 PDT |
In-Reply-To: |
MUSEUM-L at UNMVMA.BITNET -- Sat, 1 Oct 1994 16:55:46 PDT |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Rob, Regarding your suggestion of having several _topical_ moderators, I don't
see the need, _unless_ you are suggesting the we also have separate
discussion lists for each topic (which I don't think you were implying).
My notion of the work of a moderator is "simply" to handle messages that
were rightfully intended to be sent to LISTSERV as command(s) to
sign off, change settings/name/options, or to the MUSEUM-L owner regarding
some problem with (un)subscribing/receiving the list's messages. Not more.
The moderator would _not_ exclude, nor edit, any messages that are probably
intended for the subscribers of the list (even if those messages start out
with Dear Rob; one exception --there are occasional faux pas where someone
sends a painfully personal message mistakenly to the list instead of to
an individual-- I'd leave that small exception to the judgement of the
moderator, I suppose. On the other hand, maybe others won't learn to be
sufficiently careful if we have a moderator holding hands like that).
Allison Smith's comments about how ideas/discussion on one topic often
(d)evolve into other(s) reflects an extremely common phenomenon on many lists.
More than just a phenomenon, it is an important catalyst/stimulus/spark, as
Allison also observes.
That is one of the major reasons why I dislike the "REPLY-TO original sender"
approach to reducing list traffic (it _will_ reduce traffic, but it also will
have a significant dampening effect on _substantive_ discussions because
most people, most of the time, will not forward back to the list any
direct responses they receive. In effect, they will be the list's own
worst moderator. And I surely don't expect that people will go to the effort
to manually type in the list's address --they're going to continue to hit
that REPLY key, just like now.
(There _is_ one more feature of LISTSERV that may contribute a solution
to Rob's suggested _topical_ moderators. It's the TOPICS feature; I'm going
to discuss that offline with Rob and John first --too much detail.)
Peter Rauch
|
|
|