Winship wrote:
 
> It all depends on how you set it up.  If you mean the trio steadily
> rotating sole responsibility with the other two "taking a break" it might
> not work too well.  If each of the three is responsible for a particular ...
> I can't really speak to three, but two seems to work fairly well,
 
While I, on the other hand, come from a group listownership arrangement -- we
started out that way, with, let's see, I think it was six, soon grew to
nine, and we've recruited others, since.  At the moment, believe it or not,
the group numbers (let me get this added up, here ... ) six, plus three, plus
three, plus one ... Ummm, full complement of thirteen, but two are temporarily
hors de combat completely, and one is rather ill.  One is in New Zealand, the
others are scattered throughout the United States.
 
It sounds unwieldy, but, in practice, it really isn't.  The term of active
duty is one fortnight, and is taken in rotation in teams of two -- A is
active, B (geographically separated, so one downed node won't block both) on
back-up; when it's B's turn to be active, A is back-up.  Active duty entails
listserv commands (we're subscribe-by-owner, for example), aid to listmembers,
and dealing with error messages.  Sometimes, the team splits duties, one
taking daytime (has no home computer), the other night / weekend (has home
computer and modem).  Swapping within or across teams is always possible in
case of vacations / illness / pressure of work. Two of us permanently get
error messages and listserv messages / reports to provide constant back-up and
continuity; other than that, only the active / back-up team receive reports
and errors, and one of the two official techy listowners is in charge of
handling the change-over to the next team.  Listmembers are encouraged to
write to the -request address in case of problems, and mostly they do; we cc:
our off-list listownerly letters to -request so that all of us are up to date
on what's been done and said.  If an individual listowner is approached
off-list by a listmember, of course, the individual can and generally does
act, as we can and do in emergencies (list being held, say; major bouncy
problems) or, as long as we're reasonably tactful about it, if one of us
happens to be up in the wee hours and spots a problem or fields a request.
Occasionally, we even announce the change of shift on the list in some usually
indirect fashion ("As it happens, I'm listowner on duty for the next two
weeks, and ... ").
 
Not all of us can (for reasons of job, mostly) take active duty, one reason
the group grew so large, but we all have our roles.  As I said, two are
official "techies" for listserv purposes -- they're the ones who delete logs,
change list headers, and so on, so that we're not working at cross-purposes --
although, theoretically speaking, all of us CAN do such things.  We complement
eachother well in temperament, come from a wide diversity of background and
experience, and range from about thirty to mid-late sixties.  That means that
we generally also balance eachother in matters of list policy.  We can discuss
how to handle problems on the list so that there is less chance of having one
listowner "blow it" because (s)he's having one of THOSE days.  It's also handy
to have a cadre of people who can counter-post and thus steer the list back on
course when topic drift becomes too wide or lasts too long, or when we have
troublesome listmembers / incipient flames -- works out MUCH better than overt
listowner pressure or outright ukazes.
 
Unexpected bonus: we've developed a real friendship, which is one reason why
even those who have to drop out of the active rotation remain with us if at
all possible.  We're a team, and if we can't contribute directly, we
contribute indirectly.  That *does* mean you have to choose wisely when you
recruit new members, since a wrong choice can so easily ruin this.
 
So far, it's worked, and has been working since August 1992.
 
> Douglas
 
Mario Rups, co-listowner, ARCANA
[log in to unmask]