Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!killer!linimon
From: linimon@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Mark Linimon)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Permanent Postings
Summary: additions to the proposal
Keywords: Files Common Questions Space Time Savings
Message-ID: <7017@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 2 Feb 89 18:40:42 GMT
References: <6022@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <6199@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Sender: 0000-Admin(0000)
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 53

In article <6199@saturn.ucsc.edu>, ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Brad Allen) writes:
> Every group would not only have a moderator, but also a maintainer of the
> database of current common reference/history/whatever it should be called
> (what is a good name for this stuff??)

Some people seem quite opposed to moderation.  (My own personal opinion
is that is because there is no set of "guidelines for moderators," a can
of worms I am saving up ideas for at a later time).  However, the maintainer
does not necessarily have to be a 'moderator.'  Look at what John F. Haugh
does in misc.jobs.offered:

 - Once a month he posts a "welcome to misc.jobs.offered" message.  This
   covers the purpose of the group, who may post, what may be posted.

 - Through email (and when necessary, through posting) he responds to
   inaappropriate postings by suggesting more appropriate groups, or
   asking that the discussion merely stay relevant to the group.

 - He remains available by email for questions.

Yet he's not a 'moderator'.  He's acting more like what I've seen termed
an 'ombudsman.'  (I'm not particularly fond of the term, mind you, but
it is descriptive).

I think what we need, in the absence of a clear consensus of guidelines
for moderators that everyone can sign up to, is more people to volunteer
to be ombudsmen for various groups.  Just having someone (whose email
address is posted regularly) available for questions should cut down
a lot on postings of the form 'does anybody still have...' or 'what
was the conclusion of...'

Note also that since no formal mechanism exists, there can be several
ombudsmen in various parts of the country, and duty could rotate on
a fairly frequent basis.  I really think this would help for high-traffic
groups like comp.unix.questions and comp.language.c, where a _summary_
of the emailed discussions would have a higher signal-to-noise ratio
than the current content of the groups.

I will summarize any email I get, and otherwise encourage further
discussions on the net.

Disclaimer #1: so as not to be a hypocrite, if such an idea is acceptable
I'll agree to do it for either or both comp.periphs and/or comp.os.misc.

Disclaimer #2: I am not against moderation myself, and would be willing
to help along discussions to define guidelines.  However, from discussions
in the past I feel it will be much more difficult to achieve a consensus
on this.

Mark Linimon
Mizar, Inc.
uucp: (work) {convex, killer, sun!texsun}!mizarvme!linimon
uucp: (home) killer!nominil!linimon