Xref: utzoo news.admin:3857 news.groups:6039
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!execu!dewey
From: dewey@execu.UUCP (Dewey Henize)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: QUESTION OF MODERATION FOR NEWS.ADMIN: VOTE TALLY
Message-ID: <364@execu.UUCP>
Date: 4 Nov 88 15:48:34 GMT
Reply-To: dewey@execu.UUCP (Dewey Henize)
Organization: Home for Recalcitrant Hackers
Lines: 46

In article <Nov.3.23.42.38.1988.12254@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes:
}> The answer is quite simple.  Create news.admin.d for people wanting to
}> discuss news administrators, and then moderate news.admin so news admins
}> can have a place to news administration.
}> 
}> If we can convince Ed V. it is needed do you think he'll create it?
}> Or do we have to convince spaf on this one?
}
}
}NO!!!
}
}This is entirely inappropriate.  If there is one thing that vote
}showed us, it was that people want news.admin left alone.  Please
}leave it alone.  If you want to create another group and moderate
}it, fine, but don't touch news.admin.
}-- 
}Eliot Lear
}[lear@net.bio.net]


Indeed, this is exactly right.  By any stretch of the imagination, when a
real vote FAILS it is not a mandate to be screwing around with an existing
group.  There's lots of precedent for making a NEW group, making it be
moderated if thats what the people who vote for the new group with, but
changing what has been explicitly supported isn't being responsible to
both sides.

There's no question that a large number of folks want a moderated forum, and
only a little work could create one.  There's also no question that a fair
and open vote mandated news.admin to be unmoderated.  Lets play a fair on
this one, or we might as well dump all discussions in favor of the 'this is
what I want the votes to mean'.

I'm not attacking anyone here, I think simply that a bit less mucking around
with existing things (if it ain't broke, don't fix it - and the majority
voting felt it ain't broke).

Thanks for your time.

Dewey Henize

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| There is nothing in the above message that can't be explained by sunspots.  |
|                   execu!dewey             Dewey Henize                      |
|         Can you say standard disclaimer?  I knew you could.  Somehow...     |