Xref: utzoo news.groups:24324 comp.unix.internals:575
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: so-called "vote" to re-create comp.unix.wizards
Message-ID: <18581@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 10 Oct 90 13:42:55 GMT
References: <18571@rpp386.cactus.org> <27120776.717A@tct.uucp>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 53
X-Clever-Slogan: Recycle or Die.

In article <27120776.717A@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>Followers of the comp.unix.wizards/internals/esoterica debate
>in news.groups will no doubt be entertained to find that John
>F. Haugh II, who issued a newgroup on c.u.wizards without any
>of the normal procedures, is now trying to run a "vote" on the
>subject -- with the call for votes posted only to c.u.wizards.

First, the guidelines have been followed.  There has been discussion
in comp.unix.internals for more than two weeks.  Second, others have
suggested that comp.unix.wizards be recreated.  Third, the vote was
announced in the appropriate and relevant newsgroups.  That is the
gist of the guidelines.  That there be discussion, some concensus on
action to be taken, and a call for votes.  According to those
guidelines, this is a valid vote.

This is not the first time some mention of this vote has been made
in news.groups.  Complaints that the "CFV" was not made in news.groups
are a red herring - surely by now everyone in news.groups knows I am
holding a vote for comp.unix.wizards.  If they didn't know before your
posting, they sure as hell do now.

>It has been a long time since there were any net.gods to
>answer that mail.  The backbone lost its spine long ago.

I'll have to explain this to Eliot so he'll know that when I send
him the tallied votes that he shouldn't answer his mail.  There are
still quite a few people who play a non-trivial role in the running
of USENET.

As for what is currently going on, there have been a number of
suggestions made that comp.unix.wizards would be a useful group if
it were moderated.  Since that is not the issue that I started this
vote with, I'm not going to address it other than to say that if a
moderator with recognizable credentials wishes to volunteer their
time, then I'll abandon my current vote and let them procede with a
vote to re-create comp.unix.wizards as a moderated group.  Otherwise,
my current vote to re-create the unmoderated comp.unix.wizards will
continue until 11/3.

My personal opinion is that all of USENET should be moderated.  This
is not a new or unique opinion.  The only problem with this is finding
enough qualified moderators.  Given the choice between moderated
groups and unmoderated groups, I always choose the moderated flavor.
So, I happen to think that a moderated comp.unix.wizards would stand
a very good chance of being created, and given the generally high
quality and signal-to-noise ratio of moderated groups that it would
definitely be a group to read.  And yes, I would vote for a moderated
comp.unix.wizards over an unmoderated comp.unix.wizards every time.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"SCCS, the source motel!  Programs check in and never check out!"
		-- Ken Thompson