Xref: utzoo news.groups:10267 news.admin:6034
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!olsen
From: olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: moderated "newsgroups" group
Message-ID: <1441@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Date: 20 Jun 89 23:58:27 GMT
References: <3400@ncar.ucar.edu> <11945@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1989Jun12.181910.10977@twwells.com> <3484@ncar.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
Lines: 34

>>> [me] I am quite uncomfortable with including 'violation of the
>>> guidelines' as cause for permanently rejecting an article.

>> [T. William Wells] ...since there would also be an unmoderated group...
>> the injured party would still have a forum.

> [Greg Woods] This is more-or-less what I had in mind. In particular, I
> do *not* want the responsibility for determining when "extraordinary
> circumstances" are present.

Greg seems to be proposing the following organization:

news.announce.groups:
     'normal' calls for discussion or vote on new newsgroups

news.groups:
      discussion of newsgroup proposals, and also
      'extraordinary' calls for discussion or vote on new newsgroups

Greg's scheme defeats the goal of putting all newsgroup proposals in one
place.  It is far preferable for the moderator to simply ensure that the
only things appearing in the newsgroup group are in fact newsgroup
proposals, and let the voters decide whether the guidelines have been
followed sufficiently for that case.

If the eventual 'moderated newsgroup group' proposal includes the new
guidelines enforcement feature, I shall vote 'No'.

>  Lastly, I would like it if people would stop referring to the guidelines
>as "mine". They aren't.

The guidelines *are* Greg's.  He wrote the guidelines in their current
form, after a discussion which failed to achieve consensus.  While their
main thrust comes from Usenet tradition, the details are Greg's.