Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:32:59 -0400
I just discovered I hadn't hit the `send' button. <grumble>
Well, FWIW, here is my reply.
Mike Sangrey <msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org> had said:
>One reason for the list charter is so the moderator(s) can point to an
>objective rule, quote it, and say, "What you did is not allowed." The
>list charter, in effect, holds the moderator(s) accountable to the
>subscribers and vice-versa. It is, in effect, a way to "submit to one
>another" (Eph. 5:21).
Jerry Hastings <email@example.com> said:
> How would the moderators be accountable to the subscribers? If there
> was a problem with a moderator what would the subscribers do?
This is where a carefully worded list charter comes in handy. The
"rules" are then objective. The subscribers should play by the rules
and the moderator is limited to the rules.
Ultimately, the person who controls the list in an administrative
sense (think of this in terms of `root' privilege) has ultimate
authority. So the check and balance is not perfect. However, if a
moderator is no good--that is, he or she changes the rules to suit his
or her own whim--then that will eventually be reflected in the
subscribers going elsewhere, complaining on list, calling for a
ousting, etc. There is nothing to stop subscribers from picking up
and moving elsewhere. And a bad moderator will tend to make his or
her own headaches. In short, a well run list will give the moderator
very little to do; a poorly run list will moderate the moderator
(albeit in a rather negative, uncomfortable way).
IMO, since starting email lists is so very easy, the expense of
putting a system in place (eg an appeal system, or voting system) is
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."