Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Call for discussion: comp.sys.apple2.tech Message-ID: <8912060847.aa22628@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> Date: 6 Dec 89 13:45:38 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: School of Business - U. of Connecticut Lines: 60 On Thu, 9 Nov 89 18:16:38 GMT you said: > CALL FOR DISCUSSION > ################### > > comp.sys.apple2.tech > > A forum to discuss technical issues specific to the Apple II >family of computers. > >This forum will not be moderated. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry I haven't had time to enter a reply to this proposal earlier. I don't believe an *unmoderated* list will accomplish the desired objective. There are two problems. First, as others have pointed out, unmoderated lists are inherently undisciplined. Hence the likely result (in the near future) is one list that is about two-thirds technical and one-third other (some simply innocently posted to the wrong list) and the existing list with about one-third technical and two-thirds other. The second problem is that anyone with something to "get off his chest" who perceives that Apple's employees primarily read only the technical list is going to post the comments, complaints, pointed suggestions to comp.tech.apple2 <--- seem like a reasonable name? As long as the list is unmoderated, complaining about the innappropriateness of such posts will only add to the non-technical "noise." I believe the goal is much more likely to be achieved by a MODERATED list. Most moderated lists produce "digests" (info-kermit is a pretty good example), but it should be possible to have a moderated list which mails individual messages. Brint Cooper always resisted the notion of moderating the list (perceived as too much work for volunteer labor). However, the magnitude of the task may be limited by having the existing (unmoderated) comp.sys.apple as an uninhibited alternate outlet. I'd recommend that comp.tech.apple2 BE MODERATED by someone at Apple DTS, and that the moderator act primarily as a traffic director. A query that comes in could be forwarded to someone likely to be able to answer it (not necessarily someone at Apple -- Kermit questions should be sent to Ted Medin for example) and the question and answer (only ONE answer :-) could be in one post. If the moderator isn't sure who might be able to post an answer, the query could be posted (general solicitation of replies). Mail sent to comp.tech.apple2 that really isn't appropriate for the list could be either posted to comp.sys.apple or returned to sender (maybe forwarded to info-mac -- which IS a moderated list). A MODERATED comp.tech.apple2 would provide a relatively lean, focused list limited to technical issues while preserving comp.sys.apple's merry anarchy. I don't think Marty Hoag (at VM1.NoDak.Edu) will have any problem arranging to provide BITNET subscribers with APP-TECH as well as INFO-APP (it would be polite to ask :-) /s Murph [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)