Xref: utzoo news.groups:10199 news.admin:6009 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww From: dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin Subject: Re: moderated "newsgroups" group Summary: yes to news.groups.announce Message-ID: <1528@stl.stc.co.uk> Date: 18 Jun 89 10:11:10 GMT References: <3400@ncar.ucar.edu> Sender: news@stl.stc.co.uk Reply-To: "David Wright" Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK Lines: 61 In article <3400@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: #3) What to call the new group? news.groups.proposals and news.announce.groups I think news.groups.announce would be the clearest name. # I propose that I be the moderator. No problem #5) (The fun part) How much moderating should I do? Guide and advise - your job should be to help proposers get the best chance of success. Many people who want a new group do not have any idea how to go about it, and some alienate some of us by doing it wrong. If you become news.group.annouce moderator you will probably become the person people will contact for advice and discussion before they even make a formal new group proposal. Also, of course you should advise people if a group suggestion is unwise, but if they insist then you must accept it anyway, even if it is for comp.protocols.tcp.eniac or sci.guns.politics. # Other than for violation of the guidelines or not within the group's # charter I will *always* post an article after one iteration Good. # I will note this fact in an editorial remark, so the net will know what # kinds of proposals are getting questioned. I see your point, but no. You should not comment either way on proposals. Post a list of proposals you have queried from time to time if you like, not including any currently being voted on; this should achieve a similar effect without biassing a vote. We also have to understand and agree what happens if a group gets proposed in news.groups without being posted to n.g.announce. Should the moderator pick it up and post to n.g.announce? I think so, but even if not, the proposal should still be valid as at present. This will avoid the moderator having too much power: his power to advise and influence will be very considerable anyway. Now to a more controversial suggestion: having adopted the current guidelines we have no way to create a new group quickly on the main net (alt is useful but many sites don't get it, and others - e.g. all of eunet - get only a few groups). I think that in the event of a topical group creation, where there is good reason to move faster than usual, it should be possible to create the group as soon as enough votes come in. This requirement should be stricter than a normal vote however: e.g. "as soon as a majority of 120 of YES votes occurs, or if there is a majority of 100 after 30 days". But who would decide that such a case applies? With a moderator, we have a possible mechanism: iff the proposer(s) of a new group ask for "fast creation" in proposing a new group, and if during the discussion period their justification is generally accepted, then the fast method would apply: the moderator would decide whether these conditions had been met based on the opinions expressed during the discussion. Do we trust the moderator to do that? Such a vote would have to state in the Call for Votes that it was using the "fast create" rule, and why. And the justification would have to show an exceptional case - not just "we really want this group and don't want to wait for it". Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww PSI%234237100122::DWW