Xref: utzoo news.admin:5142 news.groups:8076
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Removing alt.sources.amiga (was: Re: soc.human-nets, and removing groups in general)
Message-ID: <3455@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 16 Mar 89 23:03:56 GMT
References: <3392@ficc.uu.net> <10979@well.UUCP> <3442@ficc.uu.net> <13707@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 69

(I'm not going to flame...)

In article <13707@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <3442@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >                                                Moderators put a lot of time
> >and effort into the net, and should be involved in any decision about the
> >group they moderate.

> So far the only effort that particular moderator has put into the net
> is defending a newsgroup with no traffic in well over the agreed upon
> three month idle limit.

*WHAT* agreed on 3-month idle limit?

> Comparing oneself to the real moderators who actually moderate newsgroups
> with real traffic and put in real effort doing more than defending the
> need for an empty newsgroup is very nervy.

When there is a need for strenuous activity, I undertake strenuous activity.
So long as Bob Page is alive and well, why should I add to the network load?
Back when comp.sources.amiga was dead I not only published a great quantity of
material, but actually checked and fixed bugs in everything I posted. Which
is a good deal more than most moderators do.

Also, the subject at hand is whether Brad Templeton should be summarily ousted
from his position. He's doing his job, and I don't think anyone will deny
that he's doing it well. It's just his extracurricular activity that's in
question.

> Peter has repeatedly been asked to post submissions or issue an rmgroup.

You have repeatedly asked me to do this. Using phrasing like "Peter has been
repeatedly asked..." implies that there has been some groundswell of support
for your position. I'm sure you don't mean to imply something like that, of
course.

I have explained why I have done neither. You can read it about 3 paragraphs
above. Here are some more answers (for the umpteenth time):

> Why would someone want to moderate a newsgroup with no traffic?

As a safety valve. It was badly needed when the previous moderators were
unable, for reasons beyond their control, to do the job. I think I did
a decent job, and when Bob Page took over I forwarded the remaining
submissions to him and went dormant.

Not dead, just dormant.

> So they can be a moderator?

You try it some time. Not only is it a lot of work, but you get flamed.

> Why would someone complain about another moderator [ comp.sources.amiga ]
> when that moderator has been posting submissions?

I have not complained about Bob Page. I have stated that he is doing a
decent job. I see no need to duplicate his effort. Rest assurred that if
I didn't think he was doing a decent job I *would* be actively soliciting
sources and publishing them.

I'm not a politician. I'm not going to do any more politicking on this
subject. There's no way I can keep you from propogating another unannounced
and undiscussed rmgroup if you really want to. I just think that would be
impolite and unmannerly.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.