The Advisory Committee (hereafter called AC) has, in consultation
with Jerry, reviewed the existing list policies on the procedure
for deciding on admissions of new members. We are in agreement that
the policies developed over the years on OPE-L for deciding
on admissions have worked very well and are in no need of any major
revisions. We do believe, though, that for the benefit of the entire
list the existing policies should be reported on (again), which we do
below, and modified to include the specific responsibilities of the AC
in the decision-making process concerning admissions (see below). There
is no discussion in what allows on 're-admissions' since that is a
separate issue which the AC will review at a later time.
I. Criteria for admissions:
The criteria used has been and should continue to remain *diversity*
based upon the recognition that we want OPE-L to remain:
a) an international list;
b) a list where different Marxian theoretical perspectives and 'schools
of thought' are present;
c) a list with a wide range of research interests, or 'areas of
expertise', related to Marxism and political economy are present.
d) a list with a diverse membership with regards to race and gender.
These 'diversity criteria' have been reported on to the list on prior
occasions and no one has ever expressed disagreement with these
objectives.
An additional consideration -- rarely an issue -- is that we are a
collaborative group and don't need people who are likely to engage in
'flames' which, in turn, could drive other listmembers away and thereby
hurt the list. (We remind the list that OPE-L has a "no
flames" policy.)
II. Size of list
A number of listmembers over the years have complained when the
volume gets too great -- indeed that has even led to resignations in
the past. We also recognize that there is a relation between list size
and the quantity of posts. This is a major reason why admissions have
been relatively infrequent. One has to remember that when we first got
started (in 1995) we saw an upper limit for the list of about 30 -- we,
of course, are _way_ beyond that.
Nevertheless, we think that it would be a big mistake to close off
admissions altogether -- we have to remember that some of the better
scholars, particularly in less developed economies, still don't have
email and we should have at least some room to accommodate them.
The AC has no recommendation at this time for how large the list size
should be allowed to get. We do, though, want to emphasize that we
should give list size and volume consideration as part of this process.
It may be at some point in the future that we might have to propose some
major change (e.g. limiting the posts/day or /week/listmember) if we
continue to increase list size, but we don't think that we're at that
point yet.
III. Procedure
a) The existing practice of encouraging all discussions about specific
individuals to take place off-list should remain. This is in fairness to
the individuals in question and so that listmembers can be forthcoming
in their responses.
b) the admissions procedure normally begins with the *recommendation of
a listmember*. Listmembers can make recommendations for new
members to either Jerry or to AC members. If you make a recommendation
to Jerry then he will bring it to the attention of the AC.
c) On rare instances, individuals have asked Jerry themselves if they
can join. In the past, Jerry usually responded by asking how they
heard about and what they know about OPE-L then -- if it goes further
-- tell them more about the list and seek out the opinion of other
listmembers. This procedure will be slightly revised as follows: if
someone asks to join who has not been recommended by listmembers then
the situation will be reported on and discussed by the AC which will
then decide on an appropriate response including whether other
listmembers more familiar with the person should be asked for an
opinion.
d) When someone has made a recommendation, Jerry and the AC want to
see that the person making the recommendation has considered the needs
of the list (see I. and II above), has motivated the individual in
depth, and that the person being recommended has email. It's even
better if the listmember making the recommendation knows the person
being recommended and can make suggestions about others on the list who
are familiar with the candidate and her/his work. If someone just gives
the AC a name, then we will ask the listmember making the
recommendation for more information.
Jerry reported to us that if he displayed a 'prejudice' in the past, it
was the following: if a listmember recommended someone from the US (and
to a lesser extent, the UK) the person making the recommendation had to
be prepared to _really_ motivate the candidate. The reason for this
was that he didn't want -- and he didn't think the list wanted -- a
list composed overwhelmingly of subscribers from the US (as is so
often the case on other Net lists.) The AC agrees that we should have
as much as possible a list composed of subscribers around the world and
simply ask that listmembers take this (along with the rest of I and II)
into consideration prior to making a recommendation.
e) Previously, Jerry would then ask 2-3 listmembers (on average) whether
they thought that a candidate should be admitted. The individuals asked
were selected for what he considered to be commonsense reasons, e.g.
if someone from Japan was being recommended, then he'd most likely ask
1 or more subscribers from Japan; if a candidate was working in the
area of Marxian empirical research then he'd most likely ask someone
else who is also working in that field and therefore should be familiar
with the candidate's writings; if a person presented a paper at a
conference like the IWGVT he'd often ask someone who also presented
papers at that conference; etc. In all cases, Jerry believes that he
tried to be as fair as possible to the candidate and it was very rare
indeed when after d), someone else opposed membership. In those rare
instances where there was disagreement by the people being asked Jerry
had to mediate by having further dialogue -- with the result that they
were invited. While this might seem 'ad hoc', we believe it has worked
out pretty well: in just about all cases listmembers have been very
happy to respond to JL's inquiries. On rare occasions Jerry deemed
this step to be unnecessary: in some cases, he knew that there would be
general agreement that a candidate should be accepted and in those
cases, he by-passed this step and went directly to f).
The AC will modify the existing practice as follows: after d), the AC
will decide with input from Jerry whether other listmembers should be
asked and, if so, which listmembers. In general, the AC recognizes --
as Jerry has recognized in the past -- that our listmembers represent a
tremendous resource and we believe that other members should be asked
for their opinions (selected along the lines previously used) prior to
invitation. We also *want* the rest of the list to feel that they can
have an input into this process through individual consultation.
f) An invitation will be sent out by Jerry which briefly explains what
the list is about, tells the person about the archives, and includes a
list of current and former subscribers. Jerry will then ask in the
invitation that if the candidate wants to join, then s/he should
reply to the invitation by sending him any information about her/him
(e.g. job, writings, research interests) that the candidate would be
willing to share with the list in a welcoming post that he will author.
The welcoming posts are a list tradition which we would like to see
continue: they are often very informative and frequently stimulate
discussion.
g) If the candidate responds in the affirmative, s/he is subscribed and
welcomed to the list.
To repeat: while we feel that the existing policies worked out very well
(Jerry reported to the AC that in the 6 1/2 years of OPE-L history, he
received _no_ on-list *or* off-list objections to new members), the AC f
eels that the greatest benefit to the above modifications in procedure
will be that it will (hopefully) lessen Jerry's burden and
responsibility in the admissions process.
Respectfully,
Allin Cottrell cottrell@wfu.edu
Fred Moseley fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu
Alfredo Saad-Filho asfilho@aol.com
Jerry Levy (Coordinator) glevy@pratt.edu and Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT