Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Newsgroup creations and deletions
Message-ID: <725@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 16:50:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.725
Posted: Sat Jul 27 16:50:18 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 07:31:22 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 49
Xref: watmath net.news:3748 net.news.group:3335

I finally found out what's behind the sudden unilateral creation and
deletion of newsgroups we've been seeing lately.  It seems that some
of the current mod.* moderators feel that they've been appointed
"guardians" of the network, and that they now have the power to simply
act on matters that may be too controversial or time-consuming to
bring up before the net readership at large.  That's the thumbnail,
but please keep reading.

In particular, the recent creation of a mod.general group, which
was flatly announced as a replacement for net.general, apparently
is the result of private discussions among the moderators, who
it seems felt no need to bring the issue to the attention of the
"public."  One can only assume that part of the reason for this
is the lack of conclusive support for such removal of net.general
which was demonstrated the last time this topic DID come up publicly.
So, to save a lot of hassle, they are apparently now deciding for
us which groups are needed or not needed.  This also seems to
go for other groups (mod.products?) about which not one bit of
public discussion can be found recently (if at all).

I'm not necessarily suggesting that the moderators aren't in a
position to make some useful suggestions regarding newsgroup
creations, deletions, and modifications.  But I do suggest
that they seem to have assumed an authority that I, frankly, don't
recall the net offering them!  If there is a desire for the
moderators to become the net newsgroup authorities, I strongly
urge them to bring their desire for this authority to the attention
of the network and allow the benefits and potential problems
of such actions to be discussed.  It's the unilateral nature of
what I'm seeing that I find most troublesome.

Some of you may wonder why I come out so strongly against this
issue when I'm known to be a big supporter of moderated newsgroups
and some level of content controls (particularly in relation
to Stargate).  The reason is that for something like Stargate, the
way "groups" would be created and deleted, and the manner in 
which topics would be moderated or otherwise organized would be
discussed and announced publicly and only those people/sites who wished to
participate would have to.  But with our existing Usenet, there is
no such obvious "choice," and I feel that unilateral actions are best 
avoided in any case.

I feel that the Usenet moderators are performing a very useful service,
and I applaud their work.  But I think if they want to expand their
"charter" on this existing network to more than moderating groups that the
community has decided should be moderated, they should come forth
and explain to us the reasons why such actions should be supported.

--Lauren--