Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:41:49 -0600
From: Don Roper <roper@spot.Colorado.EDU>
To: revs@csf.Colorado.EDU
Subject:  Re: reentry and reinvention
    From owner-revs@csf.colorado.edu Wed Oct 11 16:43 MDT 1995
    Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:57:33 -1816
    Subject: reentry and reinvention
    From: eero@sofi.su.se

    ...  But I still do think that the possibility of entirely
    excluding people from either of the new lists should exist, and
    still have doubts about reentering an "electronic community"
    lacking in sanctions of this kind.
	    This of course presumes that internet networks can be
    regarded as a kind of political community or association which can
    have its own rules and democratic procedure, including procedures
    for "loss of citizenship."  This of course may not be a viable
    point of reference.  Rodney Coates' comment, posted to me
    separately, indicated that one necessary complement to majority
    rule on REVS would be protection of minority rights, which I think
    is correct--at minimum this would entail some kind of procedure of
    appeal, but it's not at all clear what would be an appropriate
    authority of appeal.

    Regards,
    Eero Carroll

I suggest a very modest size 'board of editors' for REVS.  When
subscribers want to protest any of Alan's editorial policies, they can
take their case to the board.  Whenver Alan can't decide whether to
let a particular message through which warrants greater consideration
or whether to remove someone from the list, he could also take that to
board.  How REVS might go about choosing such a committee isn't
obvious, but if there is a sufficient sense of community on REVS to
support the creation of a board or editorial committee, then the means
for putting it together will surely be forthcoming.  It could be a
committee of, say, three, and as REVS grows and if the board were used
frequently, it could be enlarged over time.

don roper