Xref: utzoo news.admin:4045 news.groups:6290
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!karl
From: karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer #)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: QUESTION OF MODERATION FOR NEWS.ADMIN: VOTE TALLY
Message-ID: <2280@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 21 Nov 88 17:38:04 GMT
References: <31@gnome6.pa.dec.com> <691@ardent.UUCP> <8411@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <1722NMBCU@CUNYVM>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 23

In article <1722NMBCU@CUNYVM>, NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
> ...But Elliot,
> that was then, this is now. Now people will have a choice. They will now
> have a place to discuss whats going on in "news.admin". They can do it in
> "news.admin.d". Of course this means that those who enjoyed posting junk to
> "news.admin" will do it to "news.admin.d", rather than "news.misc", but thats
> why I voted "YES" for the moderation of "news.admin" in the first place;

Look, what's the difference?  The vote to moderate news.admin failed.  Since
your plan is to have a moderated news.admin and an unmoderated discussion
group, why not do it the other way around and call for discussion, then for
votes, for a new moderated group.  Judging from the number of people who voted
for moderation in Eliot's recent call for votes, a vote for a new moderated 
news admin group will easily carry.

Call it news.admin.digest or whatever, but leave news.admin alone in deference 
to the results of the vote that was just held.  You'll get what you want
(two groups), and it won't require ignoring the vote and the guidelines as a 
result.  There's nothing so special about the character string "news.admin" 
to warrant such covetry.
-- 
-- +1 713 274 5184, uunet!ficc!karl
-- Ferranti International Controls, 12808 W. Airport Blvd., Sugar Land, TX 77478