Xref: utzoo news.admin:5823 news.groups:9846
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!ames!lll-winken!uunet!phavl!rob
From: rob@phavl.UUCP (Robert Ransbottom)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: news.groups: OK as is
Summary: A moderated news.groups would require a different charter.
Message-ID: <242@phavl.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 89 01:08:56 GMT
References: <4333@ficc.uu.net> <1465@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Organization: General Supply & Metals, Inc., New Bedford, MA
Lines: 29

> In article <4333@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
> >   [ I'm ...] for the status quo on news.groups.
> > I have no problem with the discussions of new groups, and,
> > even when things get off on a tangent, find the postings
> > interesting.

Admitted: recreational readers of news.groups gain little by the
proposed creation of news.groups.d.  

The intent is to make news.groups accessable to more people.


In article <1465@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>, charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes:
> ...  Leave news.groups unmoderated.  Otherwise we will need
> 
>    news.groups.moderated
>    news.groups.flame.the.moderator
> 
> People get emotional about this stuff.  It seems to be the way of the net.

News.groups could be moderated IF it is JUST for calls & counts.  It would not
be a moderator's place to reject proposals that seem frivolous, etc.; just
non-proposals.  I don't see why there would be more flames.

News.groups.d should generate more flames temporarily in news.groups;
until the change is known.

-- 
 ...!uunet!phavl!rob              Robert Ransbottom