>Having the inner list not openly readable is different from my
>proposal. But you haven't mentioned the most important thing - did
>the inner list work well for insiders? If so, sounds like a success
>story.
The structure worked for the period of time I subscribed to it (and
for all I know still functions) for the following reasons: (i)
membership was based in part upon peer respect for activities in the
field, (ii) there was a defined, agreed-upon mission statement for the
list, (iii) the persons participating in the list had specific types of
information to exchange to aid others in taking on specific tasks,
(iv) the agreed-upon range of topics was not based in ideology or
opinion or worldview but was based on the realities of that particular
human rights problem, (v) whenever discussion ranged too far off-topic
or disputes flared, persons in the group were willing to step in as
moderators to call the members' attention back to the paramount
goals, (vi) persons on the list were accustomed to operating in
concensus-based decisionmaking groups.
Sin,
Kathryn Aegis