Xref: utzoo news.groups:10064 news.admin:5929
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!olsen
From: olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: moderated "newsgroups" group
Summary: we don't need a Guidelines Enforcement Agency
Message-ID: <11945@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 11 Jun 89 01:50:43 GMT
References: <3400@ncar.ucar.edu>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (James J Olsen)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

Greg Woods' recent proposals concerning a newsgroups group are
generally quite reasonable and useful.  However, I do have a problem
with his treatment of newsgroup guidelines:

In article <3400@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
>Other than for violation of the guidelines or not within the group's
>charter (i.e.  not a new group proposal, call for votes, or vote
>result), I will *always* post an article after one iteration...

I am quite uncomfortable with including 'violation of the guidelines'
as cause for permanently rejecting an article.  I have two reasons
for this view:

	1. the guidelines are just that: guidelines.  (Presumably, Greg
	   wishes to enforce *his* guidelines that he recently posted.)
	   I have no problem with them as suggestions, but they shouldn't
	   be treated as Holy Writ.

	2. even within the guidelines, there is an exception for
	   'extraordinary circumstances'.  Is Greg setting himself up
	   as the judge of when these circumstances exist?  Why not let
	   the net judge for itself?

Therefore, I think the only ground for permanently rejecting an article
should be that the article is outside the group's charter.