Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[crosstalk2] HJ groups future

Expand Messages
  • Felix Just, S.J.
    Dear Colleagues, Things sure happen quickly in cyberspace these days! In the spirit of Matt 5:9 (whether or not Jesus himself said it), let me make a few
    Message 1 of 4 , May 24, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Colleagues,

      Things sure happen quickly in cyberspace these days!

      In the spirit of Matt 5:9 (whether or not Jesus himself said it), let me
      make a few observations and suggestions:

      1) As you almost certainly know by now, Jim West just closed the
      "Historical_Jesus" group at eGroups.com, and encouraged its members to
      consider joining "Crosstalk2". Obviously it was Jim's prerogative to do
      so, but this was not the way I was hoping we could accomplish the
      suggestion (made by Jack, Mark, myself, and others) that the two
      moderated groups merge somehow.

      2) Some of the problems in the last few months and days seem to be the
      result of well-meaning individuals taking good initiatives, but without
      sufficient prior consultation and broad enough participation by other
      colleagues.

      3) Jim West is to be commended again for seeing the problem on the
      unmoderated Crosstalk and proposing the solution of forming a new
      moderated list. Jeffrey Gibson is to be commended for his desire that
      there be continuity between the old and new lists, esp. in the
      preservation of the archives. Others should also be commended for other
      more detailed suggestions and comments, but let's keep this note brief.

      4) Any of us individually could probably do a good job moderating a HJ
      list, but all of us working together (and including some other
      colleagues) could do a much better job in seeing that the successor to
      the old "Crosstalk" is truly excellent, no matter what it is called and
      who ultimately runs it.

      5) Therefore, could we all talk to one another for a bit on these
      practical issues? If you respond to this e-mail, please respond to all
      people on the header of this message (and possibly also other colleagues
      you think should be in on this discussion).

      6) As I suggested earlier, as a NAME, something like "Historical Jesus"
      would seem much better than "Crosstalk2" for this group, especially for
      its long-term identification in the future. Therefore I have
      temporarily reserved the name "historical-jesus" (with a dash, not an
      underscore) at eGroups.com, just in case we might want to use this as a
      name for the group. I certainly don't intend to start yet another
      competing group, but would be happy to make this name available to the
      group of moderators chosen to run it.

      7) The E-Groups service allows list managers directly to sign people up
      for any new list (even automatically, without asking for their approval
      or response), so it would be very easy to subscribe anyone from the
      Historical_Jesus, the Crosstalk, and/or the Crosstalk2 lists onto
      whatever list we agree to use in the future.

      8) The E-Groups service would probably also be capable of transferring
      all (or some) of the messages from the previous lists into the archives
      of any new list, as long as we convinced them that all the involved list
      owners (or former owners) wanted this.

      9) We don't really need the approval of anyone at HarperCollins for the
      group's operations, but probably need their cooperation to preserve the
      archives, so in any case Mark's offer to contact them is still
      pertinent.

      10) Since I don't know any of you well personally, I hope no one is
      offended by any of the above. Rather, I hope that in a spirit of
      compromise and cooperation we can focus our combined energies on making
      the academic list as good as possible.


      Let me close with the words of John 20:19&21 (the Gospel Reading of
      Pentecost): "Peace be with you all"!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Felix Just, S.J. -- Asst. Prof. of Theological Studies
      Loyola Marymount University -- 7900 Loyola Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 -- (310) 338-5933
      Web-Pages http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      Felix Just, S.J. wrote: [snip] ... Felix and all concerned: It seems to me that a more important issue that who will moderate is that of the criteria for
      Message 2 of 4 , May 24, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        "Felix Just, S.J." wrote:

        [snip]

        > 4) Any of us individually could probably do a good job moderating a HJ
        > list, but all of us working together (and including some other
        > colleagues) could do a much better job in seeing that the successor to
        > the old "Crosstalk" is truly excellent, no matter what it is called and
        > who ultimately runs it.
        >

        Felix and all concerned:

        It seems to me that a more important issue that who will moderate is that of the
        criteria for moderation and how strictly they should be enforced by who ever has
        the moderator's job. When I set up Crosstalk2 I unilaterally adopted for the List
        a set of what I take to be self evidently necessary and reasonable protocols and
        included them as part of the welcome message that anyone who subscribes
        Crosstalk2 should receive. ( I have just now added them to the List's description
        which is available at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk2/info.html). In case
        this has not been seen, I reproduce it here:

        *****
        List Protocols:

        For the efficient and beneficial operation of this list, subscribers are asked to
        abide by the following
        procedures:

        1. Please identify yourself in each message by your full name, your institutional
        affiliation, and
        your homepage, if applicable. This can easily be done in most mail programs with
        an automatically inserted "signature" at the bottom of your messages. If you are
        unfamiliar with signatures, please see the Ioudaios-L guide to Automating Your
        Signature (for those using Eudora, Pine, Netscape and Elm), or see the
        University of Birmingham's illustrated guide on adding signatures (for those
        using Pegasus mail).

        2. Please be courteous to all others. You may disagree with someone, but do not
        be disagreeable. Please avoid all personal criticisms. Never stoop to attacking
        someone personally, but always keep your comments objective and courteous.

        3. Please keep messages as concise and as relevant as possible. Recipients are
        less likely to read very long messages.

        4. Please quote only the relevant parts of messages to which you are responding.
        Recipients will better understand your point if you do not quote items that are
        not directly relevant to your response. In general, quote no more than six lines
        of a previous message at a time.

        5. Please keep your contributions closely relevant to the focus of Crosstalk2,
        namely, the critical questions surrounding the Historical Jesus and early
        Christian origins. Other topics might be more appropriated on other E-lists. For
        these, see Mark Goodacre's annotated guide to Academic E-Lists related to the New
        Testament, or Graphai's Related Lists page.

        6. Please re-read and proof your own messages before sending them.

        7. If you want to forward to the list a message that was sent to you privately,
        please first obtain
        permission from the original sender.

        8. Please make sure that the subject heading is relevant to the content of your
        message. If you
        are responding to a topic that was a minor aspect of a previous message, please
        change the subject heading.

        9. Crosstalk2 should not be used to discuss personal religious experiences or to
        promote religious and/or political agendas.

        *****

        But, truth to tell, if these are what we will go by, then I fear, for instance,
        that a certain dear old New England curmudgeon, as well as our correspondents in
        Rome and Toronto, would soon be called on the carpet for protocol violations. And
        I am a bit uneasy about imposing rules of this nature upon people who were on,
        and were contributing to, the original form of this List before I became a
        member.

        But one might make the argument that these people -- indeed all who are now
        subscribed -- were aware that these were the re-incarnated List's protocols
        before they subscribed to Crosstalk2 since the protocols were in the invitation
        they received to subscribe, and that signing up means a tacit agreement with
        them. Moreover, Crosstalk still exists, and so far as I can tell, few of
        Crosstalkers who have joined Crosstalk2 have unsubscribe to Crosstalk -- so they
        still have their unmoderated Crosstalk forum to post to should they chafe under
        the protocols.

        So do we have a consensus that the protocols above are binding? Are those who are
        or who become moderators bound to enforce them, or should they remain more or
        less as they are now, namely, as people whose job it is primarily to approve
        would be subscribers and to make certain that known offenders of propriety, like
        CT, are not allowed to subscribe?.

        [snip]

        > 6) As I suggested earlier, as a NAME, something like "Historical Jesus"
        > would seem much better than "Crosstalk2" for this group, especially for
        > its long-term identification in the future. Therefore I have
        > temporarily reserved the name "historical-jesus" (with a dash, not an
        > underscore) at eGroups.com, just in case we might want to use this as a
        > name for the group. I certainly don't intend to start yet another
        > competing group, but would be happy to make this name available to the
        > group of moderators chosen to run it.
        >

        This is not a problem. As List manager, I can change or modify the name of the
        Group. It would be an easy thing to add "Historical Jesus" to Crosstalk2

        > 7) The E-Groups service allows list managers directly to sign people up
        > for any new list (even automatically, without asking for their approval
        > or response), so it would be very easy to subscribe anyone from the
        > Historical_Jesus, the Crosstalk, and/or the Crosstalk2 lists onto
        > whatever list we agree to use in the future.
        >

        There may however be some on the HJ list who do not -- for whatever reason --
        wish to be on Crosstalk2. So here the subscribing should be voluntary. I wonder
        how many on HJ are on either Crosstalk, Crosstalk2, or both? Perhaps those who
        are could let me know off list?

        > 8) The E-Groups service would probably also be capable of transferring
        > all (or some) of the messages from the previous lists into the archives
        > of any new list, as long as we convinced them that all the involved list
        > owners (or former owners) wanted this.
        >
        > 9) We don't really need the approval of anyone at HarperCollins for the
        > group's operations, but probably need their cooperation to preserve the
        > archives, so in any case Mark's offer to contact them is still
        > pertinent.
        >

        I agree. I'm eager to see what he discovers.

        >
        > 10) Since I don't know any of you well personally, I hope no one is
        > offended by any of the above. Rather, I hope that in a spirit of
        > compromise and cooperation we can focus our combined energies on making
        > the academic list as good as possible.
        >

        This is also my hope -- as it has been all along.

        Yours,

        Jeffrey

        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson
        7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...



        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
        http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
      • Mark Goodacre
        I agree with Felix that consultation is necessary if we are to get this right. Here are some comments: ... I had imagined the merger working differently too,
        Message 3 of 4 , May 25, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree with Felix that consultation is necessary if we are to get this right.
          Here are some comments:

          On 24 May 99 at 11:26, Felix Just, S.J. wrote:

          > 1) As you almost certainly know by now, Jim West just closed the
          > "Historical_Jesus" group at eGroups.com, and encouraged its members to
          > consider joining "Crosstalk2". Obviously it was Jim's prerogative to do
          > so, but this was not the way I was hoping we could accomplish the
          > suggestion (made by Jack, Mark, myself, and others) that the two
          > moderated groups merge somehow.

          I had imagined the merger working differently too, but at least we are all here
          in one place now, are we? One possible concern I have is that I discovered
          that I had to subscribe to Crosstalk2 though I had thought that this was going
          to be automatic. Might there be anybody else in the same boat?

          > 4) Any of us individually could probably do a good job moderating a HJ
          > list, but all of us working together (and including some other
          > colleagues) could do a much better job in seeing that the successor to
          > the old "Crosstalk" is truly excellent, no matter what it is called and
          > who ultimately runs it.

          Agreed, but I do think that we need to take seriously the need for
          three or four well-chosen moderators. I suggest that we take nominations over
          the next week (until, say, Friday) and that we then set up a poll and allow a
          week (until, say, Friday 4 June) for everyone to vote. What do you think?

          > 6) As I suggested earlier, as a NAME, something like "Historical Jesus"
          > would seem much better than "Crosstalk2" for this group, especially for
          > its long-term identification in the future. Therefore I have
          > temporarily reserved the name "historical-jesus" (with a dash, not an
          > underscore) at eGroups.com, just in case we might want to use this as a
          > name for the group. I certainly don't intend to start yet another
          > competing group, but would be happy to make this name available to the
          > group of moderators chosen to run it.

          I think that the name "Crosstalk2" is a temporary name that should ultimately
          be changed. Before we decide definitely on "Historical Jesus", do bear in mind
          that Crosstalk last year took a poll on the subtitle for our group and there
          was a large majority in favour of "Historical Jesus and Christian Origins".
          The latter part had become an important part of the group's focus and it seemed
          important to recognise that in some way.

          > 8) The E-Groups service would probably also be capable of transferring
          > all (or some) of the messages from the previous lists into the archives
          > of any new list, as long as we convinced them that all the involved list
          > owners (or former owners) wanted this.

          Agreed -- but we would need the go-ahead from Harper Collins. Failing this,
          there is nothing to stop us keeping the (June 98 to present) Crosstalk
          web archive as a fixed entity. Since we (the subscribers to Crosstalk) were
          the ones to inititiate the FindMail archive, albeit with Harper Collins's
          permission, there is nothing to stop us from cutting off the stream from
          harpercollins >> egroups. If thought desirable, we could do this manually.
          >
          > 9) We don't really need the approval of anyone at HarperCollins for the
          > group's operations, but probably need their cooperation to preserve the
          > archives, so in any case Mark's offer to contact them is still
          > pertinent.

          Agreed. I have written to contacts there and I will let you know if I hear
          anything. It is quite possible, of course, that we will not hear anything.

          > 10) Since I don't know any of you well personally, I hope no one is
          > offended by any of the above. Rather, I hope that in a spirit of
          > compromise and cooperation we can focus our combined energies on making
          > the academic list as good as possible.

          I think that your contribution is enormously helpful.

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          Aseneth Home Page
          Recommended New Testament Web Resources
          Mark Without Q

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
          http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... This suggestion may have got lost in a longer message I sent yesterday, but I think it important. Let me break it down further: (1) Are there any
          Message 4 of 4 , May 26, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On 25 May 99 at 9:46, Mark Goodacre wrote:

            > Agreed, but I do think that we need to take seriously the need for
            > three or four well-chosen moderators. I suggest that we take nominations over
            > the next week (until, say, Friday) and that we then set up a poll and allow a
            > week (until, say, Friday 4 June) for everyone to vote. What do you think?

            This suggestion may have got lost in a longer message I sent yesterday, but I
            think it important. Let me break it down further:

            (1) Are there any objections to our having three or four elected moderators?

            (2) If the consensus is that we should have moderators, I propose that I take
            nominations off-list. I will then compile a list of nominees and poll all
            subscribers via egroups.

            (3) I suggest the following timetable: if we are agreed on electing
            moderators, all nominations should be in to me by Monday 31 May. The poll
            opens on Tuesday 1 June and closes on Monday 7 June.

            Notes:

            (a) I am offering to coordinate this on the grounds that I do not want to be
            nominated as a moderator myself.

            (b) By the term "moderator" I mean someone who keeps a watchful eye on the
            list, making sure that the protocols are respected, in consultation with the
            other moderators. I do not mean someone to whom all correspondence is
            forwarded for prior approval.

            (c) Personally, I do not see how we can avoid running into the difficulties
            that troubled the old Crosstalk without having some moderation. Thus my
            question (1) is really a means of checking whether there is, indeed, consensus
            on this. Of course the way that I state points (2) and (3) is strongly
            prejudiced in favour of an affirmative answer to question (1).

            Mark
            --------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
            Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            Aseneth Home Page
            Recommended New Testament Web Resources
            Mark Without Q

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
            http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.