Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Net.sources.d and mods to software.
Message-ID: <1366@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 23:29:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1366
Posted: Sun Aug  4 23:29:22 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 03:49:10 EDT
References: <366@timeinc.UUCP> <295@luke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 25

In article <295@luke.UUCP> itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) writes:
>In article <366@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
>>Okay...I did the easy part (taking the vote)...could one
>>of the net.gods create the group?  And what about the
>>updates to the programs?
>
>      Before any action is taken  on  this  prayer,  could  we  have  some
>      discussion  of net.sources vs. mod.sources?

While mod.sources is working well and seems like the solution here,
and John is doing an excellent job, he has indicated that he and his
machine would both be overloaded if they were to take on the task of
handling everything that goes into net.sources today.

However, this idea does merit further exploration.  For example, if
there were 3 or 4 moderators for mod.sources, and a poster was urged
to contact their nearest moderator to arrange posting.  Each poster
could keep their separate archives, but cooperate and maintain a
cross-listed index.

If we did this, would there ben any reason to keep net.sources around?

If we do decide to try it out, any volunteers to be one of the moderators?

	Mark Horton