Xref: utzoo news.groups:23806 comp.unix.internals:281
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!quasi-eli!cs.yale.edu!yarvin-norman
From: yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Give comp.unix control to the wizards
Message-ID: <26180@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 90 23:12:41 GMT
References: <8629:Sep1411:54:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu
Followup-To: news.groups
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: turquoise.systemsx.cs.yale.edu
Originator: yarvin@turquoise.CS.Yale.Edu

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>Why don't we give comp.unix control to the wizards?
>
>Several issues come up:
>
>  1. Who we call the ``wizards.''
>  2. What ``control'' means.
>  3. How the wizards come to agreement.
>  4. How the net gets control back if this experiment fails.

 5. Whether there are enough wizards who care about comp.unix.*, and are
    willing to take the time to monitor it to see how it is doing and make
    appropriate changes.

 (I am making the assumption that one needs to read newsgroups to decide what
 is best for them.)

If passing control of all comp.unix to wizards does not work out, perhaps we
can give veto power to wizards on any changes to comp.unix.wizards?  Perhaps
even make that retroactive wrt the recent renaming?

>1. We'll arbitrarily say that anyone who sent a message to unix-wizards
>before the great USENET renaming counts as a wizard. This isn't perfect,
>but it should produce a group with a reasonable number of experienced
>netters who have some interest in the groups.

How do new wizards get added to replace attrition?  Or is planning that far
ahead not a good idea anyway?

--
Norman Yarvin					yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu
 "Praise the humanities, my boy.  That'll make them think you're broadminded!"
	-- Winston Churchill