Re: fwd: "a Moderate(!) proposal"
Your very long and elegant note is based on a couple of faulty premises about what a "moderated" or "managed" list means with respect to the egroups.com server:
>"Moderated" (which does mean the interception and "proof-reading" of every post before reaching the list.No, it does not mean that. That's one option that can be chosen for a group, but it was never under any consideration for Crosstalk2. Nor would anyone want the list to operate that way.
> We self-select, for example, democratically, a fellowship of threeThe power of kicking someone out of the group is precisely the power which could not be had on Crossstalk, but which Crosstalk2 does allow. So therefore, that which you suggest is exactly what has happened.
> moderate senior members, who are charged with responsibility for
> overseeing the running of the list. They are given Power of God, ...
> which may even mean that--upon Common Consent, always --
> in the more extreme of circumstances kick butt even out of this Gea Paradis.
The other details of your plan, which involve a group of moderators, and policies subject to membership approval, etc., will no doubt be soon in place at Crosstalk2.
So it seems to me that virtually all of your recommendations are embodied in the new group, though that fact has apparently not been made clear enough yet.