RE: List Minders

From: Sandy King ^lt;>
Date: 03/13/05-01:12:40 PM Z
Message-id: <a06020437be5a3a981004@[]>


In the beginning there was some consultation on a
few issues but there has been little or none for
the past several years, at least so far as I
know. I did feel for a long time that I operating
in something of a vacuum, as you suggest. And
since I have been more actively involved the
discussions on list than some of the other list
minders it did often appear to me that issues
were being allowed to develop on days other than
mine that should have been resolved. But as I
said, I don't know for sure what was going on.
Maybe the issues were being dealt with but in a
way that I did not recognize.

I like the idea of a rotational system, but maybe
reducing the list to just three persons. I think
it would be easier for a smaller group of persons
to carry on the kind of discussions you suggest,
which appear quite reasonable to me. And I think
it should be persons who are fairly active with
the list and tend to follow it on a day to day
basis so that any one of them would feel they had
the right to step whenever a problem developed.

But something really needs to be done, if not
this then something else, because the tone of the
list has become over the past several months as
bad as I can recall, ever.


>Sandy, Did the list minders share their comments
>with each other? If you felt like you were
>operating in a vacuum, perhaps you were. If
>list minders are brought in from a broad group
>of participants, don't you think that we might
>be able to get past some of the feeling of
>arbitrary decisions by one list minder and get
>into a collective " let's please stop that type
>of exchange on the list?" List minders need
>direction too, they can get that from each other
>if they talk and share ideas. Heck we have a
>supreme court, but it doesn't just have one
>judge or one voice. They talk, listen, speak.
>Perhaps, just as we here in the US are required
>to serve on juries, it is time top have a
>rotational system set up for list minders. Once
>you've done it, you off the hook for two years
>or Š
>Eric Neilsen Photography
>4101 Commerce Street
>Suite 9
>Dallas, TX 75226
>From: Sandy King []
>Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 11:57 AM
>Subject: Re: List Minders
>I absolutely agree with you on this.
>Some years ago there was a system whereby each
>of the list minders had a day to mind the list.
>The system worked well for several years, or so
>it seemed to me. I don't know how the other list
>minders did their work but at first I would warn
>the person directly on the list. However, that
>was disruptive so eventually I started to do it
>off list. But that too had its problems because
>one person in particular felt that I was
>censoring her and not other males on the list
>and she accused me several times of sexist
>behavior, even though I was often in fact
>sending an off-list rebuke to the males. So
>eventually I just got fed up with the abuse,
>especially since it appeared to me that I was
>the only one of the list minders doing any work
>at all. I could be wrong but it seemed that way
>to me at the time. Even after that I continued
>to be blamed by the person in question for not
>rebuking those who she felt were insulting her.
>I felt that this was terribly unfair because
>even when the system was operating fairly well
>at the beginning I was only one of five or six
>list minders, each with a specific day to mind
>the list, and I never felt it was my
>responsibility, or right, to attempt to mind the
>list on a day other than the one I had been
>By and large I felt that Gordon gave me good
>support but ultimately I came to see the role of
>list minder as a no-win job because I was damned
>if I did and damned if I didn't.
>So I don't know how to fix it, but in my opinion
>you are right in that the system we have is
>completely broken.
>>I think it's clear that the listminder system is completely broken. I
>>don't know what should be done about it, and I don't know if assigning
>>other listminders would help. As long as listminders will not censure
>>people for insulting other people, which was supposed to be their job,
>>and as long as people won't self-censor themselves and refrain from
>>insulting other people, the problem will continue and the list will not
>>survive because knowledgeable people will no longer be willing to put
>>themselves out there to be exposed to gratuitous personal insult.
>>Katharine Thayer
Received on Sun Mar 13 13:12:58 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:00 AM Z CST