Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I am not a friend of Stevan's discussion style but I find this discussion boring. Can we please return to our topic? In Australia is already OPEN ACCESS DAY Please consider what you can do today (Tuesday) to spread the word about OPEN ACCESS. In my weblog at http://archiv.twoday.net there will be a lot of entries on OA including guest contributions or testimonials by Peter Suber, Rainer Kuhlen, Thomas Hoeren and others (mostly in German) . (Feel free to contribute in English - Archivalia is a colloborative weblog - you can write entries after a short registration.) Klaus Graf
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
Derek Many thanks for this. Yes, please can we get back to Business as Normal. Best wishes. Paul Ayris Director of UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer Derek Law wrote: Am I the only one who finds this febrile discussion increasingly wearing and irritating? If we must have this vote can we please do the normal thing and have A closing date (ideally about 48 hours ahead for my money) and get back to What actually matters? Derek Law __ Professor Derek Law Turnbull Building University of Strathclyde 155 George Street Glasgow G1 1 RD Tel: +44 141 548 4997 The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263. -- Dr Paul Ayris Director of UCL Library Services UCL Copyright Officer Tel +44 20 7679 7834 Fax +44 20 7679 7373 E-Mail: p.ay...@ucl.ac.uk Mobile 07771974051
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the WINDOWS-1252 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should ? or indeed can ? be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don?t like Stevan?s judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn?t made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the ?House Rules?. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC ?House Rules? are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ?Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ?Contain swear words or other language likely to offend ?Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ?Are considered to be off-topic ?Are considered to be ?spam?, that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
A timely and very clear reminder As promised, I am collecting votes (offline, to avoid cluttering up the list) on whether Stevan should remain as moderator of the list. Please note that we are NOT voting on (a) whether Stevan should change his posting style (he has already said that he will not do so) or (b) whether Stevan should cease to participate in the list - this has never been proposed and indeed there would be precious few postings without him. If you had misunderstood what you were voting about and want to change your vote, in either direction, just let me know Sally 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: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: 13 October 2008 08:22 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should ~V or indeed can ~V be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don~Rt like Stevan~Rs judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn~Rt made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the ~QHouse Rules~R. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC ~QHouse Rules~R are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ~EAre racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ~EContain swear words or other language likely to offend ~EBreak the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ~EAre considered to be off-topic ~EAre considered to be ~Qspam~R, that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop=
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the WINDOWS-1252 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] I don't know what 'voting' means here. It's entirely up to Stevan what to do and what not to do anyway. If he wishes to consult list readers before he decides to do anything, fine. If he doesn't, fine also. At any rate, consulting is not voting. Calling for a vote is precisely the sort of pseudo-democratic imposition that I mentioned and that is not fitting for a list like this. I am ready to offer an opinion or suggestion any time, but not a vote, on line or off. For Stevan, or anybody else, to decide against a suggestion or advice is fine; deciding against a majority 'vote' can all too easily be interpreted in an unpleasant and unhelpful way. I'm going against my own advice and vote against having a vote. Jan Velterop On 13 Oct 2008, at 12:39, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: A timely and very clear reminder As promised, I am collecting votes (offline, to avoid cluttering up the list) on whether Stevan should remain as moderator of the list. Please note that we are NOT voting on (a) whether Stevan should change his posting style (he has already said that he will not do so) or (b) whether Stevan should cease to participate in the list - this has never been proposed and indeed there would be precious few postings without him. If you had misunderstood what you were voting about and want to change your vote, in either direction, just let me know Sally 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: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: 13 October 2008 08:22 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should ? or indeed can ? be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don?t like Stevan?s judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn?t made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the ?House Rules?. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC ?House Rules? are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ?Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ?Contain swear words or other language likely to offend ?Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ?Are considered to be off-topic ?Are considered to be ?spam?, that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop=
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] I was on the road in the last few days, cut off from the Internet. This will explain my silence. I agree with all the people that believe Stevan's interventions on this list (and elsewhere) have been invaluable. Sometimes infuriating, but invaluable nonetheless. I have long debated against some of Stevan's theses, but I have learnt a lot from these discussions. The point of my earlier remarks was absolutely not to push Stevan out of this list. This would be total nonsense. The point was a worry about a confusion of roles. As Jan Velterop states it below, doing so ended up in not making it easy on himself for Stevan. I had not thought about JaNs, BBC-inspired, host/moderator distinction, but I find it interesting and useful. It would certainly clarify Stevan's position on this list while not cramping his inimitable style, and it would free him from negative reactions, especially when these have been the result of possible technical delays rather than intent (a reference to my own, inaccurate, outburst that seems to have started this whole discussion). In conclusion, what I was arguing about was not about a vote of confidence (or nonconfidence) with regard to Stevan. I was arguing in favour of a simple clarification of roles. What Stevan has constantly striven to do ultimately strikes me as very difficult and ultimately contradictory: attempting to be as fair as possible, as Stevan has constantly tried to do, while simultaneously adopting a highly polemical style of intervention may not be mutually exclusive stances in theory, but, in practise, they are damn hard to maintain under a single brain. Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 13 octobre 2008 à 08:22 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit : Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should - or indeed can - be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don't like Stevan's judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn't made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the `House Rules'. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC `House Rules' are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ...Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ...Contain swear words or other language likely to offend ...Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ...Are considered to be off-topic ...Are considered to be `spam', that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop Jean-Claude Guédon Université de Montréal
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
Hello Sally, Just a note to say that although I'm no longer with American Scientist, this Forum is my creation--I invited Stevan to launch it-- and I can see to a moderator change (by making the necessary contact with the system administrator) if need be. Oh yes, and as a member of the list, I vote to keep Stevan. Rosalind Reid (now) Harvard Initiative in Innovative Computing
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I agree with Derek. From the 'votes' that have been reported it is clear that a large majority support Stevan's role in moderating this list. There should be an end date from the process and this should be within a few days. I think that Sally should set such a deadline so that the list can move on. Tony Hey -Original Message- From: Derek Law d@strath.ac.uk Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:53 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Am I the only one who finds this febrile discussion increasingly wearing and irritating? If we must have this vote can we please do the normal thing and have A closing date (ideally about 48 hours ahead for my money) and get back to What actually matters? Derek Law __ Professor Derek Law Turnbull Building University of Strathclyde 155 George Street Glasgow G1 1 RD Tel: +44 141 548 4997 The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] And me (on pda travelling) Prof Keith G Jeffery -Original Message- From: Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 07/10/08 20:00 Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM 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
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
My confidence vote for Stevan Ingegerd Rabow Lund, Sweden -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery, KG (Keith) Sent: den 9 oktober 2008 06:20 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum And me (on pda travelling) Prof Keith G Jeffery -Original Message- From: Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 07/10/08 20:00 Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM 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
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
OK. Stevan has my vote. Jean-Max Noyer Université de Paris7 Le 9 oct. 08 à 14:09, Ingegerd Rabow a écrit : My confidence vote for Stevan Ingegerd Rabow Lund, Sweden -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery, KG (Keith) Sent: den 9 oktober 2008 06:20 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum And me (on pda travelling) Prof Keith G Jeffery -Original Message- From: Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 07/10/08 20:00 Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM 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.
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I've every confidence in Steven's ability to moderate here, in his energy, enthusiasm and contribution to the cause. We have a lot to be grateful for. Reading this thread, it does seem that editorial-style annotations on postings are better handled separately. Spam-filtering, editorialising, and leading/steering of discussions are separable tasks. Excerpting, summarising and commenting on posts would perhaps work better in a blog, rather than as part of the function of email filtering/forwarding. Moving such activities to a blog could also serve to better spread ideas and discussion beyond the confines of this list. If a more collective voice is preferred, it wouldn't be too hard to set up a Planet blog aggregator that included posts from any list participants. cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I could not endorse the support of Stevan more strongly than has so far been voiced. He has made this list essential reading for anyone interesting in the evolution of humanities disciplines into the realm of networked communications. He continues to have my support. Professor Paul Turnbull School of Arts Griffith University Nathan Q4111 Australia +61 7 3735 4152 Mobile 0408441139
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
Such a vote seems unnecessary to me, but if one is to be (is being?) held then I wish to make it clear that I vote to retain Stevan Harnad as moderator.
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
Please count my vote for Stevan too. David Dickson (SciDev.Net) -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hooker Sent: 08 October 2008 05:32 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Such a vote seems unnecessary to me, but if one is to be (is being?) held then I wish to make it clear that I vote to retain Stevan Harnad as moderator. __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] I have already mention my unconditional support to Stevan in response to another message. Just in case, am doing it again!! Regards to all Stevan supporters! Sely - Mensagem original - De: David Dickson david.dick...@scidev.net Para: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 8 de Outubro de 2008 06h10min31s (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected Assunto: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Please count my vote for Stevan too. David Dickson (SciDev.Net) -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Bill Hooker Sent: 08 October 2008 05:32 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Such a vote seems unnecessary to me, but if one is to be (is being?) held then I wish to make it clear that I vote to retain Stevan Harnad as moderator. __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
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 judgements and terms that occasionally raise the ire of readers such as me. When I read a sentence such as Many silly, mindless things have been standing in the way of the optimal and inevitable (Sept 28), I ask myself if the silly, and mindless characterizations belong to this context. I also wonder whether the optimal and inevitable are objective, neutral terms. On Sept. 30th, in answering to me, Stevan made free to add: What on earth does this mean?. Was that useful? In short, Stevan acts as if there was one truth, one defender of this truth (himself). The list is his list and, on it, he can berate people at will (What on earth does this mean?). And then if you resist and respond with a few equivalents to What on earth... etc., then you are accused of flaming, being vituperative, or whatever. I wonder how the same individual, at will and arbitrarily, can assume the trappings of a moderator or a debate without even making sure that people know which role is at work. It troubles me and, I assume, it should trouble many people. This said, Stevan has also done excellent work in setting up this list and maintaining it. This too should be recognized openly and loudly. But there is room for improvement. Jean-Claude Guédon PS I will not come back on this point. I leave the floor to Stevan or any other person willing to defend his present position as both actor and moderator. Le lundi 06 octobre 2008 à 13:23 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : Whether you do or do not receive copies of your own postings depends on the setting you chose when you signed onto the American Scientist Open Access Forum. I have checked Leslie's, Sally's and Jean-Claude's settings. I note that both Leslie's and Sally's were set to No acknowledgements [NOACK NOREPRO] -- the listserv's default option. I have
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
On 10/7/08, Andy Powell andy.pow...@eduserv.org.uk wrote: I'm on several tens of mailing lists and this is the only one that is manually moderated at the per-message level (as far as I know). Unmoderated listservs post everything they receive, automatically. For moderated listservs, the moderator has to manually approve each posting, having first read it to see whether it is on-topic for the list. So if spam is the reason for the current approach I suggest that someone looks into the technology to see if it can do better? The reason this list is moderated is that it has a specific topic, and a moderator keeps the list on topic. Software cannot do that. If it is not done, members unsubscribe, as they do whenever the list goes off-topic. The present meta-discussion by a few of their notions about what moderators should or should not do or be has already cost the Forum a number of subscribers, including some longstanding ones. This Forum is for the discussion of OA policy and practice. There are many very busy policy-makers on the list who are there because they are interested in that topic, and that topic alone. The moderator's role is to ensure that they get what they want and need. If the present thread were not one on whether or not I should continue to be the moderator of this Forum, I would have invoked cloture on it several iterations ago, as not addressed to the topic of this Forum. I have instead proposed a vote, but I would like to ask the votes to be sent off-line, not to flood the list. If I am not trusted to collect and tally the votes, I will inquire -- offline -- whether someone would be willing to serve as the receiver and compiler of the votes and comments, to be transmitted to the Forum in one posting after a designated interval has elapsed. Stevan Harnad
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 judgements and terms that occasionally raise the ire of readers such as me. When I read a sentence such as Many silly, mindless things have been standing in the way of the optimal and inevitable (Sept 28), I ask myself if the silly, and mindless characterizations belong to this context. I also wonder whether the optimal and inevitable are objective, neutral terms. On Sept. 30th, in answering to me, Stevan made free to add: What on earth does this mean?. Was that useful? In short, Stevan acts as if there was one truth, one defender of this truth (himself). The list is his list and, on it, he can berate people at will (What on earth does this mean?). And then if you resist and respond with a few equivalents to What on earth... etc., then you are accused of flaming, being vituperative, or whatever. I wonder how the same individual, at will and arbitrarily, can assume the trappings of a moderator or a debate without even making sure that people know which role is at work. It troubles me and, I assume, it should trouble many people. This said, Stevan has also done excellent work in setting up this list and maintaining it. This too should be
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum (UNCLASSIFIED)
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
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
On 10/7/08, adam hodgkin adam.hodg...@gmail.com wrote: I also support Jean-Claude's view on this, and like Andy Powell, I find it mildly disconcerting to see summaries and extensively interpolated commentary. Could it be that this is more convenient for the author of the reply than the reader? More suited to a one:one correspondence than to one which is widely shared. It is particularly hard to follow interpolated comments when they are several layers deep. This is a different issue, and let me state my position very explicitly: You may vote on whether or not you want me to continue to moderate this Forum, and if there is a plurality against me, I will step down. But if I receive a vote of confidence, I will not change the terms of posting, for either the moderator or any other poster: Any poster, including the moderator, may quote, comment, criticize, elaborate, rebut or summarize as he sees fit, as long as it is on-topic and not ad-hominem. (Ad hominem means about a person, rather than about their ideas and text.) Those who do not wish to follow quote/commentary may skip it, but I will not censor it. On the contrary, I strongly believe that quote/commentary will emerge with OA as an important new form of scholarly/scientific communication: Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991). http://cogprints.org/1581/ Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61. http://cogprints.org/1688/ Harnad, S. (1995) Interactive Cognition: Exploring the Potential of Electronic Quote/Commenting. In: B. Gorayska J.L. Mey (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Elsevier. Pp. 397-414. http://cogprints.org/1599/ Harnad, S. (2003/2004) Back to the Oral Tradition Through Skywriting at the Speed of Thought. Interdisciplines. Retour a la tradition orale: ecrire dans le ciel a la vitesse de la pensee. Dans: Salaun, Jean-Michel Vendendorpe, Christian (dir). Le deis de la publication sur le web: hyperlectures, cybertextes et meta-editions. Presses de l'enssib. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/7723/ This is merely a personal preference but it may not be a minority one. It is offered as a request of the moderator, rather than a criticism of him. What I recommend for those who don't like quote/commentary is to skip it, not to try to disallow it. And I repeat, unless I am voted out as moderator, I shall continue to allow it, practice it, and encourage both quote/commentary and summarizing by any and all contributors to the Forum. Stevan Harnad
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
We could try having a different moderator, freeing Stevan to post, and to respond to others' postings (preferably, as several respondents have indicated, in a concise self-contained message, rather than interpolated into the original or a summary thereof) without any ambiguity as to his standing vis-à-vis other list members. Then we could see whether list members find it better, worse, or no different I for one would nominate Charles Oppenheim, if he's willing to take on the role Sally 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: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 07 October 2008 13:37 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum 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 judgements and terms that occasionally raise the ire of readers such as me. When I read a sentence such as Many silly, mindless things have been standing in the way of the optimal and inevitable (Sept 28), I ask myself if the silly, and mindless characterizations belong to this context. I also wonder whether the optimal and inevitable are objective, neutral terms. On Sept. 30th, in answering to me, Stevan made free to add: What on earth does this mean?. Was that useful? In short, Stevan acts as if there was one truth, one defender of this truth (himself). The list is his list and, on it, he can berate people at will (What on earth does this mean?). And then if you resist and respond with a few equivalents to What on earth... etc., then you are accused of
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 judgements and terms that occasionally raise the ire of readers such as me. When I read a sentence such as Many silly, mindless things have been standing in the way of the optimal and inevitable (Sept 28), I ask myself if the silly, and mindless characterizations belong to this context. I also wonder whether the optimal and inevitable are objective, neutral terms. On Sept. 30th, in answering to me, Stevan made free to add: What on earth does this mean?. Was that useful? In short, Stevan acts as if there was one truth, one defender of this truth (himself). The list is his list and, on it, he can berate people at will (What on earth does this mean?). And then if you resist and respond with a few equivalents to What on earth... etc., then you are accused of flaming, being vituperative, or whatever. I wonder how the same individual,
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I also would like to second Michael's words and express my total confidence and recognition of Stevan's integrity as a moderator of this list. Ana Ana Alice Baptista http://www.dsi.uminho.pt/~analice Em 2008/10/07, às 15:40, Tony Hey escreveu: 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.
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I think this discussion should not go on indefinitely here on the list! There are two separate issues, that are being mixed and confused here. 1 - Stevan's position as moderator 2 - Stevan's style as poster Regarding the first, I think one should ask himself if Stevan has done something wrong on his role as moderator (and if he has done it recently for all this fuss now). As he censored, or had any other action limiting the diffusion, of any legitimate message about OA sent to the list? Despite some previous claims, afterwards denied, I think the answer is NO. So, I think Stevan has been doing a great job keeping the list on topic, I'm thankful for all the work and time he invests on moderating the list, and I'm really amazed with all this thread of discussion (started by unfunded claims of censorship). But as it started, I agree with the call for a vote, but of list Regarding the second point, I think no one should censor or impose a style on the postings of other members of the list (provided that they respect basic rules of social behavior). In my opinion that would really constitute censorship. But it's only my opinion! But if there a members thinking that we should have a manual of posting style for the list, please write it, and propose it to the list and we can vote it, again of list (I would be really curious, to see the proposed borders of what would be admissible or not admissible regarding the reply and comment of other postings- could I cite/comment an expression, a phrase, a paragraph?). As long as we don't have a Manual of posting style approved, I don't think no one (not even many voices) can impose a limitation on the freedom of expression of any member of the list! Eloy Rodrigues Universidade do Minho - Serviços de Documentação Campus de Gualtar - 4710 - 057 Braga Telefone: + 351 253604150; Fax: + 351 253604159 Campus de Azurém - 4800 - 058 Guimarães Telefone: + 351 253510168; Fax: + 351 253510117 -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris Associates) Sent: terça-feira, 7 de Outubro de 2008 14:10 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum We could try having a different moderator, freeing Stevan to post, and to respond to others' postings (preferably, as several respondents have indicated, in a concise self-contained message, rather than interpolated into the original or a summary thereof) without any ambiguity as to his standing vis-à-vis other list members. Then we could see whether list members find it better, worse, or no different I for one would nominate Charles Oppenheim, if he's willing to take on the role Sally 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: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 07 October 2008 13:37 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum 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
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I agree with Alma, Tony, Mike, and others. This list depends on Stevan's energy and dedication, and would be much less valuable without them. Peter Suber At 11:08 AM 10/7/2008, you wrote: I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM 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. [...]
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I totaly agree with Eloy when he says : 1) this discussion should not go on indefinitely here on the list! 2) I agree with him and with a lot of other members that Stevan has done a FANTASTIC work! 3) I agree that it is amazing to see how this discussion has started and where it conducts us! 4) I agree with him that the request of standardization of a forum and of a posting style is a form of censorship. 6) I am not sure that a vote is necessary . In France, we say : Les plus gênés s'en vont . I will try to translate. Sorry if it sounds strangely : The more bothered leave. Since 10 years, a lot of members have left the list for different reasons without a noise but this list during this time has gained 1000 members . Hélène Bosc - Original Message - From: Eloy Rodrigues e...@sdum.uminho.pt To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:29 PM Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I think this discussion should not go on indefinitely here on the list! There are two separate issues, that are being mixed and confused here. 1 - Stevan's position as moderator 2 - Stevan's style as poster Regarding the first, I think one should ask himself if Stevan has done something wrong on his role as moderator (and if he has done it recently for all this fuss now). As he censored, or had any other action limiting the diffusion, of any legitimate message about OA sent to the list? Despite some previous claims, afterwards denied, I think the answer is NO. So, I think Stevan has been doing a great job keeping the list on topic, I'm thankful for all the work and time he invests on moderating the list, and I'm really amazed with all this thread of discussion (started by unfunded claims of censorship). But as it started, I agree with the call for a vote, but of list Regarding the second point, I think no one should censor or impose a style on the postings of other members of the list (provided that they respect basic rules of social behavior). In my opinion that would really constitute censorship. But it's only my opinion! But if there a members thinking that we should have a manual of posting style for the list, please write it, and propose it to the list and we can vote it, again of list (I would be really curious, to see the proposed borders of what would be admissible or not admissible regarding the reply and comment of other postings- could I cite/comment an expression, a phrase, a paragraph?). As long as we don't have a Manual of posting style approved, I don't think no one (not even many voices) can impose a limitation on the freedom of expression of any member of the list! Eloy Rodrigues Universidade do Minho - Serviços de Documentação Campus de Gualtar - 4710 - 057 Braga Telefone: + 351 253604150; Fax: + 351 253604159 Campus de Azurém - 4800 - 058 Guimarães Telefone: + 351 253510168; Fax: + 351 253510117 -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris Associates) Sent: terça-feira, 7 de Outubro de 2008 14:10 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum We could try having a different moderator, freeing Stevan to post, and to respond to others' postings (preferably, as several respondents have indicated, in a concise self-contained message, rather than interpolated into the original or a summary thereof) without any ambiguity as to his standing vis-à-vis other list members. Then we could see whether list members find it better, worse, or no different I for one would nominate Charles Oppenheim, if he's willing to take on the role Sally 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: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 07 October 2008 13:37 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum 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,
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM 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 judgements and terms that occasionally raise the ire of readers such as me. When I read a sentence such as Many silly, mindless things have
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
Derek, Peter Suber and those with whom he agrees speak for me as well. -Mike Michael W. Carroll Visiting Professor of Law American University, Washington College of Law 4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016 (202) 274-4047 (voice) (202) 730-4756 (fax) mcarr...@wcl.american.edu Research papers: http://law.bepress.com/michael_carroll/ http://ssrn.com/author=330326 blog: http://www.carrollogos.org/ See also www.creativecommons.org From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Derek Law [d@strath.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:12 PM 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 read but don't usually post to this list - but i'm finally goaded to. The list is really useful; stevan is unique and to be cherished even when one disagrees with him. I can think of no one who would put up with this nonsense. I want two votes. One to support Stevan and one to have the moderator close this thread. It's like the besieged settlers under attack who circle the wagons and start shooting inwards! Derk Law -Original Message- From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Sent: 07 October 2008 15:54 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org 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
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] I vote for Stevan. In my opinion, he should remain. Suzana P M Mueller Universidade de Brasilia muel...@unb.br - Mensagem original - De: Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com Para: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Enviadas: Terça-feira, 7 de Outubro de 2008 12h08min48s (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected Assunto: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM 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
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
This whole mess is amazing, and sad. I vote for Stevan and I am looking forward to a return to normal on this forum, even if normal is being criticized by some... Professor Bernard Rentier Rector University of Liege 7, place du 20 Aout 4000 Liege, Belgium Tel: +32-4-366 9700
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
Having been abroad during the time this controversy began I have had to scan the dozens of messages about Stevan's monitoring of this listserv. I rarely comment on open access but feel that Stevan Harnad has provided us all a remarkable education. One day I am confident he will deservedly be nominated for a prize equivalent to the Nobel for his perseverance and patience in dealing with these issues. Suggestions for improving the listserv procedures are always to be welcomed. But to suggest that anyone else would be more effective is nonsense. Having dealt with hundreds of editors in my career I can say I have never encountered one that was more dedicated and knowledgeable in the areas he has tackled. He is indeed Mr. Open Access. __ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfi...@codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Derek Law Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:12 PM 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 read but don't usually post to this list - but i'm finally goaded to. The list is really useful; stevan is unique and to be cherished even when one disagrees with him. I can think of no one who would put up with this nonsense. I want two votes. One to support Stevan and one to have the moderator close this thread. It's like the besieged settlers under attack who circle the wagons and start shooting inwards! Derk Law -Original Message- From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Sent: 07 October 2008 15:54 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org 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:
