Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!texbell!ssbn!carpet!bill
From: bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: Moderation of news.admin
Message-ID: <159@carpet.WLK.COM>
Date: 25 Sep 88 01:25:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: carpet.159
References:  <2728@tolerant.UUCP> <155@carpet.WLK.COM> <54460RWC102@PSUVM>
Reply-To: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Distribution: na
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr & Associates, Pipe Creek, TX
Lines: 53

>In article <155@carpet.WLK.COM> I wrote:
>>
>>When I cross-posted to news.admin and news.sysadmin one time I was politely
>>informed that news.admin was for news administrators and that news.sysadmin
>>was news for system administrators.

In article <54460RWC102@PSUVM> RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) writes:
>To state that news.admin and news.sysadmin are reserved _for_
>administrators is not technically correct.  Both groups are
>reserved for comments directed _to_ the respective sort of
>admins.

I didn't mean to suggest anything about "reserved" unless that means "most
appropriate to".  I doubt that anyone over in comp.fonts cares much about
why articles vanish without being expired.  But I did mean to point out that
it was a place for discussion among the administrators.  I disagree that it's
a place you address things _to_ administrators unless it's of general use and
interest to all or most of them.

>I might be convinced to vote for moderation of news.admin,
>were someone to collect votes and agree upon a reasonable
>method of tallying opinion, and to present an adequate _reason_
>that moderation is necessary.

Me too, but the sort of person with the savvy to moderate a rather narrow
technical group would not be likely to want to screen out some of the stuff
that has appeared here lately.  I coordinate a rather large mailing list.
The people on the mailing list think and say it's "moderated" but I don't
agree with them.  They moderate themselves.  I think I might have returned
one, maybe two, contributions in two years.  They don't want a lot of air,
so they don't generate much.  I acknowledge the *significant* difference
between a newsgroup and a mailing list, but I suggest that the analogy is
still valid.  The audience should control the tone and tenor of the
discussion.

[ voting opinion deleted ]

>as a valid means of determining the need for moderation of a group.

I think that far more important than any voting results would be the
selection/appointment of a moderator.  I would want that individual
to be a news administrator at a site with every conceivable kind of
news administration problem (which means we wouldn't get one).  My
mailing list has a mechanism for handling contributions that cover
well trodden ground, I don't know how you do that in a newsgroup.  The
moderated groups I read seem to be pretty fast moving and there isn't
much "trodden ground".  Accordingly, I'll go back to an earlier suggestion.
Let's make news.admin a place for discussing news administration and
discourage (I'm guilty, twice in a single day) discussions that don't
have anything to do with news administration.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  Internet:  bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
                Usenet:  { killer | att | rutgers | uunet!bigtex }!ssbn!bill