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,