Steve K. wrote in [OPE-L:1536]:
> I would rather see the second second list -:) used as an open list,
> with automatic one-directional traffic of all posts from OPE-L to
> CAP, and discretionary traffic from CAP to OPE-L at the behest of
> the list organizer, but I don't think now is the time for that
> idea (this way, CAP would be an academic alternative for the, in my
> opinion, completely degenerate Marxism list, without the danger of
> it "white-anting" the quality discussions which occur on OPE-L).
Four short points:
==================
(1) CAP-L and EM-L list *are* closed lists. For us to have an open list,
we'd have to ask Philip Chao, the Server Manager at California State
University, for one.
(2) We had a fair amount of discussion earlier this month about open
(i.e. public) archives. The feeling from the list was mixed, but I think
there was strong enough opposition to the proposal not to proceed
(although, Iwao is working on a WWW archives site that would be
accessible to list members). Consequently, the idea that OPE-L posts
would be automatically sent to another list is not appropriate at this
time, IMO.
(3) I consider it highly likely that there will eventually be an open list
on Marxist economics. When such a list (in future months or years) is
formed, then I'm sure many OPE-L members will participate. I believe
that such a list, however, should be formally separate from OPE-L.
(4) On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent us from saying, if we
agree that one of the new lists should be a seminar list, that
all of the archives from *that* (e.g. CAP-L) list can be made publicly
available. As a matter of fact, such archives might be of wider public
interest since they would all be focused on a particular subject and/or
papers.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry