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

[crosstalk2] Re: HJ groups future

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.