******************************************************************
*******
I don't think I am overstating the facts when I say that the
TOPICS-option saved our list from breaking up over petty squabbles
having more to do with style than substance.
I would like to "tell our story" in a defense of the TOPICS-option.
******************************************************************
******

Our group, CETEFL-L: Central and Eastern European Teachers of EFL
(English-as-a-Foreign-Language) has, as its mission statement: "the
promotion of the effective teaching of EFL in Central and Eastern
Europe).

We now have 260+ members in 30 countries, and few of them can agree
on exactly what is appropriate to discuss. So -- just to forge a
"minimum consensus" --  I created 11 topics (plus "OTHER", which acts
as the "trash").  We refer to these (internally) as
"posting-channels".

Now, I also have a general List Manager and a separate Manager for
each channel and I want to give these managers more freedom, to run
their channels as they see fit, within the overall-guidelines of the
group.  In effect, I want to create 11 sub-lists, which receive (my)
"logistic/technical" support from the umbrella-organization
(CETEFL-L) but which will cost me almost no real administration time,
except adding and deleting members.

None of these channel-managers have actual LSOFT manager privileges,
but I support them in any way I can (e.g., removing members from
their channel or from the whole list, whenever they ask).

In addition, we have a "tenant organization" on one of our channels,
ME-TA (the Military English Teachers' Association), which is entirely
outside CETEFL-L, but which must comply with the landlord's rules (as
any good tenant should).  I hope that it will be possible in the
future to invite other European EFL-teacher groups to join us as
"tenants", each having control of their own channel (i.e., TOPIC),
but following our posting rules and adding significantly to our
member-base across eastern Europe.

All members can chose which "channels" they wish to receive, at will,
with this exception:
ALL members MUST receive the ADM:channel (i.e., the channel for
administrative announcements ONLY) and NO member (except
channel-managers and index/digest recipients) may receive
OTHER:channel.  I enforce this policy by sending this stock  message
regularly to our server:

SET CETEFL-L TOPICS: -OTHER for *
SET CETEFL-L TOPICS: +ADM for *
SET CETEFL-L TOPICS: +OTHER for [addresses of managers who want it]


A channel-manager can thereby choose to receive these mis-posts, some
of which were meant for his/her channel, and THEY can then write the
member, to ask him/her to repost the message properly to his/her
channel (or simply re-post it there themselves).

These TOPICS also (inadvertently) protect us from the most common
viruses, which never use a valid topic in the subject line, and
therefore are immediately shuffled off to "OTHER" (i.e., to the
trash).

We have used the present configuration of 12 topics for 16 months and
we are planning to further "fine tune" it soon, just to meet the
expanding needs of the group.  Most of us are pleased with the level
of group activity (usually 2 to 10 postings a day).  And there will
soon be new guidelines issued for managers, after our general List
Manager/Co-Owner returns from vacation, and we iron out the final
details (and then find new managers to replace  the old ones who have
chosen to leave our "Management Team").

If anyone would like more information, I would be glad to send it.
 (I have been planning this system for a long time, long before
moving to this server, which we did  SPECIFICALLY to obtain the
TOPICS option for the group.


Dennis Hickman (M.Ed.)
CETEFL-L System Administrator (and Co-Owner)
EFL Teacher-Trainer
Ministry of Defense
Army of the Czech Republic
Prague, CZ