Dear Christopher (and all who may feel concerned),

If you want to know the reasons why Bill East left this list, it seems
reasonable to ask Bill himself and not to ask the list that he left. He
left the list, but not the world, quite to the contrary, he is as lively
and active as ever and can be reached under his email address
([log in to unmask]).

On the other hand, if you want to know why the listowners acted in a way to
which Bill responded by leaving the list, you are asking us to repeat in
public the criticism that we had offered to him in private. Please
understand that we cannot do that, first, because Bill is not present to
defend himself, and second because as listowners we have a certain rule
that we think is to the benefit of this list:

We keep this list open, totally open, to criticism of what one says or
writes about things medieval, provided that the criticism is expressed in a
scholarly and courteous form. But we do not regard this as a forum where
criticism of a more personal nature should be expressed, neither by the
owners nor by other members of the list. If anybody dislikes the style or
the number of another member's listpostings, he is asked not to bring his
complaint to the list, but to contact in private either the person in
question or the listowners. In the latter case, the listowners will then
decide if this complaint is justified, and if they find it to be so, they
will contact the person who has given cause to the complaint and will try
to sort things out with him (or her). Maybe we will also post a message to
the list, adressing not an individual but the list in general and asking to
do or to restrain from doing certain things. In our opinion, this makes
more sense (and is better style) than criticising a member's individual
performance in public.

In the given case, we have tried to sort things out in private with Bill,
because we were prompted by complaints and because we had our own concerns.
We saw the list moving from dialogue and exchange to wordplay and
monologue, and we knew that many members were beginning to feel excluded.
Bill was not to blame for this development, but we thought that he had a
certain share in it, and so we suggested to him to use certain restraints
that he, in the end, preferred not to accept.

Please don't believe that we are trying to cover up anything. Also please
don't think that we want to prevent anybody from discussing the purpose or
the rules (written or unwritten) of this list. If you want to start a
discussion of *this* kind, please feel free to start it. If there are rules
you don't like, name them. If there are rules you want to be observed more
strictly, name them. But, please, avoid putting the names of persons to
infractions or to problems when you are describing them to the list,
because presenting problems in a more general way will make it easier for
all of us to agree or to disagree *for reasons* with you.

One more word, this time about the suggestion of reposting Bill's messages
from the archives: please don't. They are great stuff, but they are very
long, and they are easily accessible in the list archives. Let us not
change this list into a newsletterlike thing were members are sitting at
the receiving end and gratefully enjoy what they get, but let us keep the
list as a lively forum for active exchange and dialogue.

Yours,

  Otfried