Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!ames!amelia!prabhu
From: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.religion.eastern
Message-ID: <4552@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 20 Jan 90 08:07:27 GMT
References: <4460@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <21754@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Reply-To: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 57

In article <21754@unix.cis.pitt.edu> srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath  Viswanathan) writes:
>>
>>       Firstly, I am somewhat puzzled by the sudden change in name from
>>soc.religion.eastern to talk.religion.eastern over the course of a day.
>>The original call for soc.religion.eastern was dated 9 Jan 90. The call
>>for talk.religion.eastern, claiming a lack of response to the first
>>message, is dated 10 Jan 90. Is one day really enough to consider a
>>name change? If there are indeed good reasons for the name change,
>>shouldn't people get a chance to air them first? Lastly, if it is any
>>consolation, my site received both messages today, 19 Jan 90.
>>
>>     To address the matter at hand, I would vote against talk.religion.-
>>eastern as my site does not get the talk. groups.
>>
>>                                               Srinath

   My site underwent some reconfiguration recently and hence the delay
   in getting articles posted on the bulletin board. Sorry about that.

   Regarding the "soc" to "talk" conversion. This conversion stems from
   a long correspondence I had with Greg Woods (the moderator of news.
   announce.newsgroups) and the opinions posted by Tim Maroney and Dan
   Veditz (see articles around 1/7-1/10 in this newsgroup). Apparently,
   net precedent has it that unmoderated religion or politics newsgroups 
   belong in the talk hierarchy and moderated ones belong in the soc 
   hierarchy. Since the *.religion.eastern was proposed as an unmoderated 
   newsgroup and the volume of discussion rather low, I decided it would 
   be best to move it to the talk hierarchy. The idea was also to prevent 
   a net war about the choice of hierarchies (a la sci.aquaria). Let us
   assume (tentatively) that the proposed newsgroup will be in the talk 
   hierarchy. Perhaps a clearer picture will emerge at the end of this
   discussion period (Feb. 1 is when I want to bring this to a vote).
    
   I would like to hear people's opinions about moderation (regarding
   the proposed newsgroup only). Some people have made compelling arguments
   for moderation: prevent flames, prevent "loonies", brevity, etc. But...
   the scope of the proposed newsgroup is too vast for a moderator. 
   Ideally the moderator would have to be knowledgeable about the religious
   systems that fall within the scope of this newsgroup. This is asking 
   for a bit too much. One possibility would be have multiple moderators 
   (like soc.religion.islam). Right now I don't have a clue as to 
   how one selects a moderator and I don't want a personality contest
   for the selection of one or more moderators. Any suggestions ?

   If the majority opinion indicates that moderation is absolutely necessary
   AND I can find one or more moderators then I would move the group into
   the soc hierarchy where it would form a nice sister group to soc.religion.
   christianity and soc.religion.islam. Opinions anyone ?

   If most people are ambivalent about moderation then I would keep the group
   as an unmoderated group in the talk hierarchy.


   Dinesh Prabhu
   (prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov)

   Opinions expressed above are all mine.