Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j9QLvVG27791; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <BF85736E.5A46%Janet_Isserlis@brown.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis@brown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:2336] Re: Response to moderation post X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2364 Lines: 46 Tanya With respect, this response tells us very little about the impetus behind the moderation changes you describe. Many of us have been on this list for quite a while and are very well aware of the conflicts with federal funding and lobbying, and have been mindful not to use the list for that purpose. There have been no such postings on this list - at least that I'm aware of - for quite some time, nor have I noticed them on the many other lists to which I subscribe. We have had visiting moderators/responders. That's all to the good. If your issue is relevancy, will each list then (re)post the criteria that delineate what a relevant message is? I'm sorry - I don't see how these actions do anything more than add work for the moderators of the lists as well as make those of us participating in conversations - or at least make me feel, as I can't speak for anyone else - that there's an element of control and monitoring on the part of the NIFL. Such a position seems antithetical to the proposition of fostering free exchange amongst professional, and seems to imply that participants are incapable of sharing responsibility for utilizing the list appropriately. And to maintain the relevance of this discussion to professional development - how / do other professional development practitioners moderate or monitor local lists? How does moderation - in whatever ways you define it - support or hinder professional development as it can occur through written dialogue? Janet Isserlis ... And we are undertaking new efforts to > better support professional development for adult and family literacy > practitioners. As part of that effort, we are making changes in how we > provide discussion list services. > > With these changes, the Institute seeks to expand upon professional > development opportunities for teachers,for example - discussions with > subject area experts. Moderators will continue to perform the duties they > have performed traditionally and, in addition will monitor messages to > ensure that only those messages relevant to the topic of the lists are > posted. Moderators will also ensure that posted messages do not contain > content that violates federal anti-lobbying laws. As part of that effort we > are making changes in how we provide discussion list services and we will be > using new software - Mailman.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:41 EST