On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:45:54 -0400 Philip Janus said:
>For what it's worth, on the law school mailing list (go figure), I've had
>to defend the title "list owner" three times. Everytime, I've launched
>into a tirade which combined "what's in a name" and "you have to call the
>guy running the list something; LSOFT picked 'listowner'; live with it"
>It's worked so far- what are they gonna do anyway? Let 'em bitch. :)
 
Lawyer wannabees... figures, eh?  :-)
 
Here we view "owner" and "ownership" as terms of someone's requesting
a list accepting "ownership", meaning being the person who is ultimately
responsible for the list, maintaining the list (bounces, etc.), promoting
good Netiquette (and we even quote that in the online list request form).
By accepting "ownership" of the list, they agree to abide by our policies
and rules.  We also refer to "list sponsors", because we require that
lists be sponsored by a full-time faculty or staff member.  (We don't
care who actually does the work, but we found early on that student
sponsorships end up being too transient to rely on... and getting
a faculty sponsor has never been a problem.)  As far as we're concerned,
they *do* "own" the list, are responsible for day-to-day maintenance, etc.
It takes the burden (well, some of it) off of us and helps insulate
us in case of problems on an individual list.  We are here certainly in
case of problems for advice, for assistance, but with about 400 lists and
extremely limited staffing, we can't do every list all day every day.
 
And... Eric's correct... just how far would we end up having to take it?
If this is something over which subscribers have problems, they have far
more serious problems to worry about.  :-)  I'd recommend they get a life.
Perhaps a clue would follow closely behind that.  :-)
 
-Holly