Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Again, from a non-poster: this is an excellent list: well-moderated, useful
information, wonderful people who will respond offline if a person needs a
little extra discussion and does not want to belabor the list. Please stop
all this and get back to real, on-topic discussions. Stevan Harnad should
continue to moderate the list.
Connie McEowen, MLS
US Army Research Laboratory
AMSRD-ARL-CI-OK-TP
voice: 410-278-3394
fax: 410-278-4178
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Tony Hey
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 10:40 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci
Forum
I absolutely agree with Michael - the list would die without Stevan
Tony
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Eisen
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:26 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci
Forum
I disagree with Stevan often. He can be infuriating. He has a tendency to
bloviate.
Nonetheless - he has been a FANTASTIC moderator of this list. I have sent
off many posts that have criticized Stevan directly, and he has never failed
to send them to the group. I can think of no other list that has not just
lasted for 10 years, but kept up a high level of discourse and relevance.
Stevan has my complete confidence. The list would die without him.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:37 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk
c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
I totally support Jean-Claude's view.
I can only repeat what I said before:
(1) I am happy to put an end to my 10-year moderatorship of the
American Scientist Open Access Forum and hand it over to someone else
who is willing to do it, but only if it is requested by a plurality of
the membership, not if it is merely requested by a few dissatisfied
members.
(2) The moderator's role is to filter postings, approving the relevant
ones, and rejecting the off-topic or ad-hominem ones.
(3) Apart from that, the moderator has no special status or authority
(other than what may accrue from the substance of his postings), and
may post *exactly* as any other poster may post, including the posting
of quotes, comments, critiques, elaborations, rebuttals *and
summaries*.
By my count, there have not been many votes one way or the other, but
of the few votes there have been, more seem to be expressing
confidence in my moderatorship than those that are calling for me to
be replaced.
I have also been accused of of censorship, by both Jean-Claude and
Sally, the charge being subsequently rescinded. If there are doubts
about whether I can be trusted to post or tally the votes -- or, more
important, if we are to spare the Forum the bandwidth of votes
appearing instead of OA substance -- I am also quite happy to direct
the votes to be sent to a trusted 3rd party for tallying, if that is
the wish of the Forum.
Stevan Harnad
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Head
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509 223053
e mail c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-
fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon
Sent: 06 October 2008 19:00
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: American Scientist Open Access Forum settings
What I note is that my messages sometimes appear back very late and I
wonder why. It is this detail which caused my recent angry reaction.
While we are on technical matters, I would appreciate two things from
this
moderator/actor:
1. That he should refrain from ever summarizing somebody's words.
We are all
versed enough in the art of reading to be able to survive without
this doubtful form of help. Besides, list moderators are not mentors
or paternal figures. When the summary ends up distorting the original
message, it becomes reprehensible;
2. Since the moderator also intervenes as member in this list, he
should make clear which of his interventions are moderating
interventions and which ones are participations in discussions. In
the latter case, summaries should be avoided.
I realize that Peter Suber manages a blog and not a list, but I
really like the way in which he carefully delineates the pieces of
news he wants to convey, and how he announces his own comments. This
is a very good model to follow. I would also add that Peter Suber
refrains from using
