>      I want to thank the dozens of you who
>      responded to some questions I posed to
>      this list for an article about mailing
>      lists in academe that was published in
>      the Nov. 2 Chronicle of Higher Education.
>
>      I can send photocopies of the article to those
>      who want them. Just send me a snail-mail address.
 
see below
 
 
>
>      In researching that article, I became interested
>      in the issue of how list owners govern. I heard
>      from some people who said they had been tossed off
>      of lists because of political differences with the
>      list manager.  The Chronicle has recently had two of its reporters
>      tossed off of lists after they telephoned people to
>      pursue stories about what they said on the lists.
>      The listowners said that reporters did not belong and would
>      inhibit discussion.
>
>      These were not private lists, but ones with open, automated
>      subscription mechanisms.
>
>      My questions have to do with how much power list owners
>      should rightfully possess?
 
Regardless of "rightfully" most list owners have absolute power, except
for technical problems where computer administrators have absolute power.
This is built into the software setup. There is at least one list-newsgroup,
sci.med.aids, that has introduced a voting scheme which controls which
articles are approved for distribution.
 
 
>
>      What are your policies about who gets to be on a list?
 
My list is open to all.
 
 
>
>      Do you consider them private places or public places where
>      journalists and ideological opponents may lurk?
 
This is too simple. My list is open for new subscribers, but the archives
of previous messages are set to "Private", meaning that only subscribers
can access them. I am considering a change that would prohibit use
of messages in any other context. This appears to be necessary because
messages may be used out of context.
 
 
>
>      If you think of them as private places, why not create a
>      private list for people with specified credentials rather
>      than keeping them open to everyone except journalists
>      and those you've identified as enemies?
 
Journalists are in a position to republish messages in a new more
public arena, which goes beyond the original intension of the sender.
Often they distort the meaning of communications to make them more
sensationalistic "news worthy". The list does not have this tendency.
 
 
>
>      Are there any checks and balances or appeals
>      processes that someone can use to try to stay
>      on the list after you've decided they should go?
 
We have under discussion a censure proceedure that would require 3/4th
vote to exclude someone, but this is at the pleasure of the list owners,
who actually control the software.
 
 
>
>      If you are operating your list on a university-owned
>      computer, does your computer center have rules about
>      whether your lists must be public?
 
No.
 
 
David S. Stodolsky, PhD               Internet: [log in to unmask]
Tornskadestien 2, st. th.       (C)         Tel.: + 45 38 33 03 30
DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark               Fax: + 45 38 33 88 80