Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!dkuug!tfl.dk!karsten
From: karsten@tfl.dk
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Comp.sources.unix idle _AGAIN_
Message-ID: <1991Feb24.211321.147@tfl.dk>
Date: 24 Feb 91 20:13:21 GMT
References: <3520@uc.msc.umn.edu> <376@metran.UUCP> <1991Feb22.204139.15552@sat.com>  <sean.667415034@s.ms.uky.edu>
Organization: TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory
Lines: 45

In article <sean.667415034@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
> karsten@tfl.dk writes:
> 
> |   1) People don't care about the *.sources.* groups.  Then the proposal
> |      will fall.  The vivid discussions about comp.sources.unix and
> |      R$ proves that wrong.
> |  ...
> 
> I think the answer is #99: The comp.sources.* groups are the PROPER
> places to post sources. The answer is not to create new newsgroups.
> 
> I have a world of respect for the moderators,
 
So have I.

>                                               but if they don't have
> enough time to keep up with submissions, then we should get new
> moderators. There are thousands and thousands of people to benefit by
> timely postings. It's silly not to replace them or for them not to
> pass on that moderatorship if they just don't have the time.

At current one moderator names the next.  If a moderator fails to
do is job, then people complain and nothing happens.  comp.sources.misc
was idle for months because the previous moderator did not name a new.
The current system neither ensures that the best moderator is selected,
nor that a slack moderator is replaced.  I think the job of moderating
comp.sources.unix is so big that you can't expect a continuous flow of
software, and that replacing R$ will just mean that a new moderator must
take all the flames.

I think it is time for trying to expand the capacity of the comp.sources
groups, and that is what the proposal about comp.sources.reviewed is about.
It is not about substituting any of the moderators for the comp.sources.*
groups for two reasons:

   1) The way comp.sources.reviewed is proposed to be moderated
      has not been tested.  It might fail and in that case the
      old comp.sources.* should still exist.

   2) These groups have proven valuable and viable.  Why removing
      something valuable and viable?

Karsten Nyblad
TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory
E-mail: karsten@tfl.dk