Winship wrote:
 
> Mario's message illustrates that multiple owner's *can* work but I
> imagine it works best when it, sort of, evolves as the list he speaks
 
The original group already knew eachother from another list; some of us were
also already friends; a few of *those* had actually met.  Our first two
invitees were also friends from that list; the next was the sponsoring
faculty member we needed when we moved to a new host, the first "outsider",
although he'd been on the list since its inception, so he was not a stranger.
The three just invited in are listmembers who have shown through their
postings the level of calmness, subject expertise, dedication to sound
scholarship, and the occasional glimpses of a sense of humour we thought all
in all was as much of a prerequisite as anything.  So, yes, we did grow.
 
However, more importantly, the original group spent about a month discussing
what we wanted of and in and on this list.  We also had as our example the
list where we met -- and we wanted to be sure our list did not resemble that
one.  We had, however, gained some experience in steering a list (away from
flames, e.g.) with our postings there.  So we knew the basics of what we
wanted and how we could probably manage to get it.  We learned hard lessons
along the way, like the one about letting the list police itself wherever
possible.
 
I know the person who asked the question originally did not intend to
institute mob rule <grin>, but I advanced the story of our situation simply
to demonstrate that it was really mostly a matter of the TYPE of people you
have as listowner, and that numbers need not be a limiting factor or limited.
 
Besides, I wonder from time to time if we are unique in our group
listownership ... I know of one list with three owners, but that's the
largest group whereof I know personally.
 
BTW, we *do* have our disagreements.  But that's normal, between friends.
And I'll win them over to my point of view sooner or later <chuckle>.
 
> Douglas
 
Mario Rups
[log in to unmask]