** Sometime around 11:29 -0500 12/27/97, Ed Price said:

>Wow !!  20% Who ever thought that one up ?  I've seen nothing of the kind
>and would not encourage its use.  Even if invoked I doubt that 20% would
>respond unless it was a very small and active ML.  A recent vote on our ML
>to choose a symbol resulted in 9 votes total out of 1000+ subscribers.

Yes, I found that to be somewhat odd, as well. Even on issues that
directly affect the members of the mailing list, I've found that 15%
is about the best I can hope for on my discussion lists (they number
in the 800 to 1200 range).

Just out of curiosity, Kathleen, how did you (or whoever) arrive at
the 20% figure, and have you really seen that kind of response when
conducting polls?

** Sometime around 15:38 -0500 12/27/97, Dan Lester said:

>I've never heard of such rules, but my philosophy is a bit different than
>yours, I believe.  I'm in charge of the rules, I make them, I enforce them,
>I interpret them.  The rules may not be discussed on list, though I'm
>always glad to have input by private email.

Well, I've been in BLOFH (bastard list owner from hell) mode lately
with one of my lists -- but even given that, I feel that my job is to
target the list to the will of the majority (as I perceive it -- and I
simply work on the assumption that if I'm too far off the mark, I'll
start hearing about it). I think that discussing the rules on the list
-- from time to time (certainly not every week) -- is good for the list,
and helps the members feel as if it really is working for *them*.

Overall, you'd be surprised how *rarely* these discussions surface --
and they are usually brought on by my own actions. For example, I once
set someone to REVIEW for using profanity on the list. This led to a
discussion of what the majority wanted to allow -- which, in turn,
led to a list-wide decision to simply ban all forms of profanity on
the list. Now, when someone uses profanity on the list, I can simply
state that we have discussed its use, and have decided that it is not
appropriate on the list. The majority of the list's members -- not
merely the listmom -- has spoken.

In the end, discussions such as these serve to make my job as a listmom
*easier*, not more difficult.

** Sometime around 8:19 -0500 12/27/97, LYDIA FISH said:

>After all, people who don't like the way you run your list can always start
>their own.  Vwar-l has several spinoff lists that started that way.  When a
>member would become too much of a problem child I would politely suggest that
>he/she really should start his/her own list and several times my advice was
>taken.  Now when someone becomes particularly obnoxious I just suggest that
>he/she would be *much* happier on list X or list Y.

I do this with my "announcement"-style humour list, since there are so
many other humour lists from which to choose. On my discussion lists,
though, I reserve suggestions like that for those subscribers who are
clearly in the minority *and* won't take "No" for an answer. The rest of
the time, I think that it is important to be open to list members'
suggestions -- otherwise, they are left with the impression that the
list's custodians are accountable to no one (which is not a good scenario
for most discussion lists).

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/TSC/Vince/>
[log in to unmask]            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>

Behind every successful man               Behind every successful man is a
is a surprised woman                            woman with expensive taste
-- Maryon Pearson                                           -- Vince Sabio