Xref: utzoo news.groups:3623 comp.sys.mac.programmer:723
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!ht!spt!gz
From: gz@spt.entity.com (Gail Zacharias)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Anybody home in comp.sources.mac?
Message-ID: <299@spt.entity.com>
Date: 7 May 88 22:12:51 GMT
Reply-To: gz@entity.com (Gail Zacharias)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: The Singular Entity, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 27

I recently tried posting something to comp.sources.mac only to have it
automagically mailed off to some moderator, never to be heard of again.  I
don't know whether it never made there (although I never got any mailer
barfage), or whether a moderator is still pondering its news-worthiness. Is
there any real reason for comp.sources.mac to be moderated?  At the risk of
understatement, I can confidently say that volume would not be a problem.
It's a little hard to try and develop the 'sources habit' in the macintosh
community when source postings get unnecessarily delayed or go off into a
black hole.  I'd rather live with an occasional inappropriate posting.  I've
had quite a few mail requests for the sources since I announced them, so the
interest in sources is there, but most of the mail oozed with doubts about the
reality of comp.sources.mac.

I'd like to propose that comp.sources.mac become unmoderated.  What is the
procedure for making that happen?  I'd be willing to take a vote, although I'd
rather not.  At least I'd like to hear some confirmation from the backbone, or
whoever handles such things, that a vote is what's required, before making
hundreds of mailers jump through the hoops about this...

Alternately, maybe we can all simply agree that sources are appropriate
comp.sys.mac.programmer fodder and avoid comp.sources.mac altogether?

Followups have been directed to news.groups.

--
gz@entity.com					...!mit-eddie!spt!gz
	   Stop the virus epidemic - demand the sources.