Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,news.groups
Subject: comp.sys.amiga moderation?
Message-ID: <1296@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Jan-87 23:15:08 EST
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.1296
Posted: Sun Jan 25 23:15:08 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Jan-87 06:41:15 EST
References: <2950@j.cc.purdue.edu> <3830@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <972@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins)
Distribution: world
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath comp.sys.amiga:1680 news.groups:229

In article <972@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes:
>
>At a meeting of Usenet admins during USENIX, it was decided to start
>the renaming of the mod.* groups.  This means mod.amiga.sources will
>become a comp group, but will still be moderated.
>
>                                                    It also means
>that mod.amiga and comp.sys.amiga will be merged into comp.sys.amiga,
>and will be moderated.
             ^^^^^^^^^

Since when?  The last two times this confusion came up, I checked with the
net.gods repsonsible for the various postings (Mark Horton and Rick Adams).
They both indicated that the comp.sys.amiga group *was not* to be moderated.

In previous postings, you idicated that it was your intent that the mod.amiga
group was desired by many persons and that you hoped it would eventually
replace the net.micro.amiga group (now comp.sys.amiga).

The relativly small number of postings emitted from the moderated group
(~50 total vs ~750/month) suggests to me that most of the users of this group
prefer the unmoderated format.

Now it is painfully obvious that comp.sys.amiga (like the other popular comp.sys
groups) generate volume out of proportion to their readership.  Perhaps a switch
to the moderated format is the only netwide solution to this problem, but if so,then some discussion is indicated.  There are alternatives, like getting the
sources and binary groups working reliably so that that volume is not reflected
here... 

Subjects:

a) would you intend to be the moderator?

b) how would you plan to handle the volume (this is several times that of
   the highest-volume moderated groups most of which are just echo groups
   for essentially unmoderated arpanet mailing lists).

c) what provison for alternate moderators or alternate sites in case the
   moderator/site takes a powder for a time.

d) what kind of turn-around would result for question / answer vollies?

Now as a CBM person, with a massive conflict of interest in the whole thing,
I'll shut up.  But as one of the (unofficial) shepherds of the group, I feel
that the issue deserves discussion rather than just simple notification of
some (possible) netocratic fiat.
-- 
George Robbins - now working for,	uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)