FW: Liblicense-l: rules of the road
Here's a set of 'rules' for another email discussion forum, one which I personally think is moderated in an exemplary fashion Sally (Forwarding with Ann's permission) Sally Morris Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy) South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: owner-liblicens...@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicens...@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Okerson, Ann Sent: 23 October 2008 00:15 To: liblicens...@lists.yale.edu Subject: Liblicense-l: rules of the road Dear Readers: A couple of individuals have asked if liblicense-l has any rules of the road for moderation. I've tried to set them down, and here they are. Comments? Thank you, Ann ___ liblicense-l: Rules of the Road The hallmark of liblicense-l for many years has been its mix of current information of high value to librarians and publishers and friends, with serious and spirited discussion of issues that engage, perplex, and divide us. The moderator participates but hopes that the moderating hand is mainly invisible. But even if invisible, it is still active, seeking to keep the list valuable as a place for both information and discussion. First rule: If we can possibly post a submitted message, it will be posted, as soon as possible (usually this happens in the evenings), timing adjusted perhaps by professional travel and responsibilities, quirky networks, and the occasional balky laptop. We're not fond of censors and have no ambition to take on that role. Second rule: Tedium is tedious, so if there's a choice, messages are preferred to be shorter rather than longer. Once in a while if a message seems too long to sustain attention or promote conversation, we will ask the poster to shorten or perhaps point to a URL for fuller discussion. Third rule: Embarrassment is embarrassing and unpleasantness is unpleasant. If threads linger to the point where the posters lose perspective and the signal to noise ratio falls near zero, we will stop a conversation discreetly, perhaps by a note, as kindly as possible, to one or two posters. Fourth rule: Insults are unnecessary, so we try to ask posters to restate something if only heat and not light will result. (We do sometimes occasionally miss a potential source of affront, and apologies for that.) This does mean recognizing the personalities and styles of the regular posters, in particular, and not thwarting their evident pleasure in thwacking away at each other a bit with cushiony oversize boxing mitts. A bit of that may liven things up. Fifth rule: Nobody makes money here. Publisher announcements are posted when they seem to be of genuine interest to the readers here - e.g., announcing a very important piece of business, a new kind of partnership, a business model, or an ambitious project. Single announcements of individual new titles or new hires rarely meet that test of interest. Sixth rule: We all agree we dislike monopolies, so when there is risk of a poster monopolizing the conversation, we write to that person to ask for some restraint. Seventh rule: The Web is an even more wondrous place when we check URLs first to be sure they're working. Even then, the URL doesn't always work, though. Eighth rule: Vanilla ASCII RULES. Sometimes evenings are spent reformatting, word by word, messages that, unfortunately, don't arrive as plain text -- provided such messages are readable at the moderator end; often they are not and must be returned to the sender. The Listproc software garbles non-ASCII text, html formatting, or attachments to some extent or totally, which means that it is a kindness to the moderator when posters send ASCII-only. (No smart quotes, no em-dashes or en-dashes, no umlauts or accents.) Why use listproc? Because many of our subscribers are in countries where internet access doesn't permit easy receipt of fancy or complicated messages. Sometimes, character by character cleanup (not fun, believe me) doesn't work and gibberished messages go get to the list, so we go back to the archive to clean up the =20 and =93 signs that have crept in. That's not fun, either, but we do it. Ninth rule: Do all the previous message in the thread need to be included with your response? Often, the answer is NO. It's a different kindness to readers when posters (or the moderator) cut out some of the repetition that occurs when a thread goes on and mailers append sixteen earlier messages (with all their signature blocks!) to the new one that reads in full, I agree with what Smedley wrote. Tenth rule: What happens on liblicense-l stays in the liblicense-l archive, which is linked off the LIBLICENSE web site (www.library.yale.edu/~llicense). We have only taken 3 messages out of the archive in 12 years, when pressed for legal reasons, and none for other requests. Eleventh rule: The lib in liblicense-l is
Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road
On 23 Oct 2008, at 12:09, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: Here's a set of 'rules' for another email discussion forum, one which I personally think is moderated in an exemplary fashion I expect there are hundreds of other discussion forums whose charters and processes are indeed praiseworthy. To forestall a combinatorial explosion of admirable attributes, let me draw the attention of those who are interested to the following analysis of the diverse practices of mailing list moderation: Berge, Z.L. Collins, M.P. (2000). Perceptions of e-moderators about their roles and functions in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 81-100. http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/modsur97.html Given the range of practices represented above and the result of the recent vote, I propose that the status quo is admirable position to maintain. (Moderation-wise, not OA-wise!) -- Les Carr
Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road
All - As others have said let us get back to the purpose of this thread and stop fretting about how it is moderated; the vote has taken place, let us all get on with sharing experiences, views and proposals concerning the real challenges we face. Keith -- Prof Keith G Jeffery E: keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Director Information Technology International Strategy Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK T: +44 1235 44 6103 F:+44 1235 44 5147 President ERCIM STFC Director: http://www.ercim.org/ W3C Office at STFC-RAL http://www.w3.org/ President euroCRIShttp://www.eurocris.org/ VLDB Trustee Emeritus: http://www.vldb.org/ EDBT Board Member http://www.edbt.org/ -- The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it The CCLRC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the policy available from http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm. --- --- Please note that from 20081006 all my email will be sent out from stfc in the format above. However, incoming email using other email addresses for me will work for the forseeable future. Nonetheless, you are advised to change any address book entries or typed 'to' email addresses to the new address provided above. --- -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr Sent: 23 October 2008 17:08 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road On 23 Oct 2008, at 12:09, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: Here's a set of 'rules' for another email discussion forum, one which I personally think is moderated in an exemplary fashion I expect there are hundreds of other discussion forums whose charters and processes are indeed praiseworthy. To forestall a combinatorial explosion of admirable attributes, let me draw the attention of those who are interested to the following analysis of the diverse practices of mailing list moderation: Berge, Z.L. Collins, M.P. (2000). Perceptions of e-moderators about their roles and functions in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 81-100. http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/modsur97.html Given the range of practices represented above and the result of the recent vote, I propose that the status quo is admirable position to maintain. (Moderation-wise, not OA-wise!) -- Les Carr -- Scanned by iCritical.
Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road
While I understand the sentiment to focus on the content rather than the process, it seems to me that what the recent interactions about Stevan's moderation suggest is a need to have some commonly understood guidelines about how the list will be managed. Sally's constructive suggestions are the most appropriate means (IMHO) to put this to issue to rest, rather than treating it as an annoying aberration that should dismissed and forgotten. The vote confirmed that the majority of those responding supported Steven remaining as moderator. It did not resolve the issue of how the list was to be moderated and what the role of the moderator should be. Doug Jones Science-Engineering Library University of Arizona Tucson, AZ -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery, KG (Keith) Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:32 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road All - As others have said let us get back to the purpose of this thread and stop fretting about how it is moderated; the vote has taken place, let us all get on with sharing experiences, views and proposals concerning the real challenges we face. Keith -- Prof Keith G Jeffery E: keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Director Information Technology International Strategy Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK T: +44 1235 44 6103 F:+44 1235 44 5147 President ERCIM STFC Director: http://www.ercim.org/ W3C Office at STFC-RAL http://www.w3.org/ President euroCRIShttp://www.eurocris.org/ VLDB Trustee Emeritus: http://www.vldb.org/ EDBT Board Member http://www.edbt.org/ -- The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it The CCLRC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the policy available from http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm. --- --- Please note that from 20081006 all my email will be sent out from stfc in the format above. However, incoming email using other email addresses for me will work for the forseeable future. Nonetheless, you are advised to change any address book entries or typed 'to' email addresses to the new address provided above. --- -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr Sent: 23 October 2008 17:08 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road On 23 Oct 2008, at 12:09, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: Here's a set of 'rules' for another email discussion forum, one which I personally think is moderated in an exemplary fashion I expect there are hundreds of other discussion forums whose charters and processes are indeed praiseworthy. To forestall a combinatorial explosion of admirable attributes, let me draw the attention of those who are interested to the following analysis of the diverse practices of mailing list moderation: Berge, Z.L. Collins, M.P. (2000). Perceptions of e-moderators about their roles and functions in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 81-100. http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/modsur97.html Given the range of practices represented above and the result of the recent vote, I propose that the status quo is admirable position to maintain. (Moderation-wise, not OA-wise!) -- Les Carr -- Scanned by iCritical.
Topic of AmSci Moderatorship is Closed
MODERATOR'S NOTE: On October 14, following the vote, I announced cloture on the discussion of the moderatorship of the AmSci Forum. Sally Morris violated this cloture with her posting on liblicense moderatorship, and I violated its enforcement by allowing Sally's posting. Now I will make amends: Those who are dissatisfied with my 10-year moderatorship of this Forum are respectfully invited to leave the Forum and start one of their own. No more postings on the moderatorship will be approved. Dixit. Stevan Harnad Moderator, American Scientist Open Access Forum On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Jones, Doug jon...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: While I understand the sentiment to focus on the content rather than the process, it seems to me that what the recent interactions about Stevan's moderation suggest is a need to have some commonly understood guidelines about how the list will be managed. Sally's constructive suggestions are the most appropriate means (IMHO) to put this to issue to rest, rather than treating it as an annoying aberration that should dismissed and forgotten. The vote confirmed that the majority of those responding supported Steven remaining as moderator. It did not resolve the issue of how the list was to be moderated and what the role of the moderator should be. Doug Jones Science-Engineering Library University of Arizona Tucson, AZ -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery, KG (Keith) Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:32 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road All - As others have said let us get back to the purpose of this thread and stop fretting about how it is moderated; the vote has taken place, let us all get on with sharing experiences, views and proposals concerning the real challenges we face. Keith -- Prof Keith G Jeffery E: keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Director Information Technology International Strategy Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK T: +44 1235 44 6103 F:+44 1235 44 5147 President ERCIM STFC Director: http://www.ercim.org/ W3C Office at STFC-RAL http://www.w3.org/ President euroCRIS http://www.eurocris.org/ VLDB Trustee Emeritus: http://www.vldb.org/ EDBT Board Member http://www.edbt.org/ -- The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it The CCLRC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the policy available from http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm. --- --- Please note that from 20081006 all my email will be sent out from stfc in the format above. However, incoming email using other email addresses for me will work for the forseeable future. Nonetheless, you are advised to change any address book entries or typed 'to' email addresses to the new address provided above. --- -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr Sent: 23 October 2008 17:08 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Liblicense-l: rules of the road On 23 Oct 2008, at 12:09, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: Here's a set of 'rules' for another email discussion forum, one which I personally think is moderated in an exemplary fashion I expect there are hundreds of other discussion forums whose charters and processes are indeed praiseworthy. To forestall a combinatorial explosion of admirable attributes, let me draw the attention of those who are interested to the
