Re: Argument on list and pages (was Re: Integrating PRNCYB-L w

Cliff Joslyn (joslyn@KONG.GSFC.NASA.GOV)
Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:26:27 -0500


>I agree, sometimes one is better, sometimes the other. If e-mail was
>automatically entered as a (maybe tempory) node in a structured way
>and new nodes automatically echoed to the list we could have the best
>of both worlds.

Your archive is approaching that.

(PS. new PCP nodes and major updates should be
>notified with a title and URL on the list please!, we don't always
>have time or memory to browse the "new" list).

Something I've bugged Francis about fairly often: each time the "recent
changes" list is updated, a message should be sent to pcp-news, of which
PRNCYB-L is a member.

>This would mean, some distinguishing between,
>dynamic/changable/disputed/e-mail nodes and the more
>static/consensus/PCP nodes.

Turchin's earliest thought on this was three statuses: consensus nodes,
individual contribution nodes, and discussion nodes, in order of stability
or "collaborative granularity".

>> ..stuff on the virtues of an ideal moderator deleted and agreed upon...
>
>Please give it a shot,

No, no, that's not supposed to be the way it works! :-) First, I guess we
think it's a good idea. Then: a topic. Then: someone ELSE step forward to
volunteer (with Francis' permission, I'll temporarily deuptize an Editor
for this purpose). Finally, I'll do it.

>it is ultimately an impossible task as the
>moderation is always relevant to the subject (note the overriding
>importance of being the chair of a comittee, even though this
>restricts your right to vote!).

Yes. It's also not clear to me exactly how strict that separation should
be. The urge to actually say something of my own would be overwhelming.

>In a real sense we should all try to be our own moderators (to a
>considerable extent debate is impossible without this).

Exactly. But I've found over and over (perhaps most tellingly, among your
Editors) that three is the magic number: dialog moderated by a third. Among
the three of us, that role would shift among Francis, Val and I. As one or
two of us got our backs up or started spinning in circles the third would
step in with the moderating voice.

>Maybe there
>should be a panel of three active moderators, who would have to reach
>a consensus or something like that....(just thoughts).

Let's take it one step at a time.

O---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, NRC Research Associate, Cybernetician at Large
| Mail Code 522.3, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
| joslyn@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/joslyn 301-286-5773
V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . .