Xref: utzoo news.admin:11255 comp.sources.d:6006 alt.sources.d:1065
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.sources.d,alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: Comp.sources.unix and replacing Rich Salz
Message-ID: <16075@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 29 Nov 90 04:14:44 GMT
References: <1990Nov27.075737.16836@vicom.com> <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: news.admin
Lines: 23

In article <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes:
>The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders.  The
>newsgroup has been next to worthless for well more than a year now.
>How can they defend the job he's been doing?  

Their arguments, if I understand them correctly, are twofold: (1)
c.s.u may not pass much, but what it does pass is of the highest
quality and rigorously tested, which makes the group valuable as is; and
(2) detractors don't always seem to understand that moderating is hard
work.

I guess the question is whether there's really so little high-quality
software being released that c.s.u's meager flow is sufficient.
Moderating certainly IS hard work -- the kind that engenders burnout.
There's nothing dishonorable about that, but for the good of the net
it's important to recognize when it happens.  Let's put it this way: how
would we know if the c.s.u. moderator WAS burned out?  What would it
look like, and how would that be different from what we have now?

I would not want to pass the duty to someone less capable than Rich, nor
would I want to piss him off to where he wouldn't consider doing it
again in a couple of years.  But is there no way to settle on an
amicable rotation?