The future of the list?

[Paul Mackin]

Penny sez:
  I truly believe that it's a choice between moderation of
> > some sort, or losing some of the best contributors we have, to the
> > great detriment of the list.

Will the 'best contributors' please identify themselves so we
know what we'll be missing?

Just kidding, and I do sympathize, but respectfully can't find much
merit in the proposed solution.

By moderating I suppose we mean not merely filtering out the pure
crap of which there is plenty and of course every little bit helps, but 
also of deciding what is relevant to some presumed purpose of the list. 
This latter task will be exceedingly hard, even if a fairly loose 
definition of relevance is applied, it seems to me. Chosing will be 
particularly  difficult for the reason that it is so very very late in 
the game.  We've known each other too long not to have formed strong 
opinions as to whom we could really accept to decide relevance. Yes,
this or that person might SEEM acceptable. But here's what will happen.
Someone will reluctantly step up to volunteer, and most, regardless of
how they feel, will be too polite to say, oh no, not him or her looking
over my shoulder.

So, what I'm saying is this: having a moderator come aboard at this
stage will be chilling even if they do a commendable job and may send 
people running as much as anything else will, and  whether they're good 
contributors or bad.

Incidently, I consider both Penny and John Krafft excellent
contributors and respect them for being founding mothers/fathers
as well.

                                P.