Apologies to the list for long delay -- for allowing this thread to unravel
(almost) into cluelessness.

And thanks to cris, who, I think, understands me better than I understand
myselves. His reading is quoted in full below at **

Here's a one two three ...

1) I don't want to be a or the-first reader/editor. I *am* volunteering to
be an adminstrator / webmistress.

2) I would like to receive (back channel: to the email address
[log in to unmask]) messages from any list member willing to be a
reader (nb. I see no reason why a 'reader' might not actually be more than
one person acting as an 'entity/avatar', btw). If I receive enough such
(arbitrary) self-nominations, I will selected three amongst them to be the
first deCentral Committee by (chance) procedures (a MacLuwdged
gender-normalized pseudo-random number generator). Readers must agree to
read work submitted to them, to comment on it and to either recommend or
not 'as a publication of the List'. All this material should be open to
publication as a supplement to the submitted material. *But* it isn't
necessary that the names of the readers be known. If the list thinks it's a
good idea, I could (try to/do my best to) maintain the anonymity of
readers. (What does the LIST think of this? It would mean that you would
all have to be very clear about the distinction between posting to the list
and posting to me.)

I suggest readers agree to serve for a quarter (3 months). We only proceed
if we have a year's worth of potential readers. (?)

3) *IF* a readers' committee can be successfully established, I further
volunteer to receive submissions by email, and then distribute the
submissions (anonymously or not?) to the readers.

4) Once the readers have read and commented, I also agree to mount the
submissions on my own personal web space. (Yes, I *will* translate the
submissions into *simple* and as-faithful-as-possible html and mount them
on a site.) (If the experiment is successful, we might move the site to
somewhere less 'personal' later.)
I would also be willing to separately mount the unsuccessful
submissions, along with the readers' comments. (I think this is important.)

5) I would, finally, undertake to distribute successful submissions to the
List and more widely by email, as the List felt appropriate (other poetry
Lists, interested Arts lists, etc.) The successful submissions would be
both on the site and posted to the list as 'publications of the List'. (The
unsuccessful submissions would be on the site only.)

Now who could say fairer than that. I MUST BE CRAZY!

I will now dam myself up / decelerate for about three days in the hope of
seeing some feedback on these ideas. Then I will await wild enthusiasm and
numerous self-nominations from potential readers.


**
Ric Caddel:
>>But as far as I can make out from the responses, they seem to include your
>>earlier idea of appointing an "editor" or "ringmaster" by rotation or
>>something, and posting poems to the list, and then discussing them. If
>>this is (roughly) right, I've no hesitation in applauding, agreeing,
>>appointing you first ringmaster and wishing you every success.

cris cheek:
>
>John should step in here, but this seems some distance from his suggestion.
>
>It is lacking in crucial elements that render his proposal a serious one
>with potential to demonstrate something that can be AN articulation of
>policy. John is making a provocative intervention in editorial waters. What
>he suggests is a gradual (contextualised and historised) process of
>anthology that could form a measurable 'public' face of 'the list itself'
>- be a collective production and collective authorship / ownership. Dead
>cool geeky hip po-mo cyber stuff.
>
>- the patriarchy or matriarchy of 'being appointed' and the invitation to
>hierarchically implemented exercise of 'power' is circumvented by
>suggestion of arbitrary selection from the members of the list. I'm
>presuming that the mechanism for such arbitrary selection would be as
>post-structuralist as possible (this is deliberate irony, for those who
>can't read tone on lists - heck, in respect of tone what's the difference
>between reading the words here and in a book ? ? anyone?). There is a
>simple procedure that John could suggest for achieving sufficiency of
>arbitrariness.
>
>But will anybody be prepared to do the work, the reading, the necessary ?
>Presumably not everyday here would accept if selected ?
>
>- the infrastructure that John suggests is 'intended' to produce texts
>that are then 'publications of the list', taken on board as such and open
>for debate as such and challengable as such and to be 'corrected' as
>'policy' by dialectics of selection through negotiation / discussion,
>discursion as the 'publications of the list' accrete into a substantiable
>'body of works'.
>
>I see John's idea as realpolitik in this given medium now. A hopefully
>radicalising approach.
>
>How about a pilot run - for say five occurences?
>
>count me in

cris cheek:
>John, this all seems like policy and policy articulated to us, but i sense
>you're after something else. I.E. a community policy of openly (perhaps
>specifically) negotiated values and an positionable critical readerships.
>So, that by your suggestion of the 'publication of the list' such
>post-structuralist mechnisms as you suggest might be furthered more
>'consistently'.

exactly

more cris cheek:
>1) simply by dint of typographical detail most of what i am currently
>'writing' would not be possible to post up on the list. It could agreed be
>posted on an equivalent of the 'wr-eye-tings' scratchpad site. Hence I tend
>to agree with your suggestion of a linked site that feeds into this list
>with an openly declared policy and an open invitation to become part of the
>reader pool. But then we are presuming (and we are) a level field of
>technological adeption. I would happily post pieces for consideration under
>such a scheme and would happily be 'arbitrarily' chosen as a 'reader'.
>
>2) your proposal involves a form of 'collective responsibility' for what is
>posted as 'a publication of the list'. Arbitrariness of reader selection
>will help in the formulation of acceptance as such. Turf wars will from
>time to time well out i suspect.
>
>3) how can we know, we should certainly try it, that what results will not
>simply be yet another (british) version of diplomatic consent, that will
>reveal little of pith and little of 'articulated policy'?
>
>4) crucially as you raise it, the issues of this medium as a force for
>carrying the work forward - its materialities, its potentials for
>advocacy

important considerations




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%