Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Announcements Message-ID: Date: 28 Mar 89 07:32:19 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 40 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 111, message 7 of 7 Over the weekend, you were mailed a special edition of the Digest suggesting that you participate in a Usenet vote on the subject of 'Guidelines For Usenet Moderators'. The topic was of some controversy in news.groups, and the passage of the proposed vote would have affected the relationship of all moderators of news groups/lists. The person who proposed the vote, and set up the apparatus for the vote decided, for reasons not known to me, to cancel the voting. The address set up to accept the votes was removed, and all mail sent after sometime late Saturday was refused, and returned to the sender. My first knowledge of this came when I was reading news.groups earlier this evening. My second notice came when a couple readers here reported that their mail had bounced. Apparently you should NOT submit a vote. I apologize for the confusion, but at the time the vote was announced I did think it was important to let everyone know. On another issue: mail regarding caller ID is still coming in. I know at one time I said we would use it all, but I never really expected to get quite the volume. As the days go on, the responses become more rancorous and hateful. Yes, I started the discussion, but at the same time I did devote not one, but several issues to printing replies, from every possible angle, and expressing every possible opinion. If I keep on running those messages, we would have digest after digest of them; none of them saying anything new, and many of them simply stirring up more hate and discontent than exists already. In today's issue, we at least have a message from someone who is actually using it, describing how it works, and I have printed a couple of FINAL replies from the several received in recent days. Let's *please* move on to different topics. Any further messages on Caller ID should preferably be from persons who have subscribed or who have technical commentaries about the offering. Thank you! Patrick Townson