Xref: utzoo news.groups:16263 comp.os.os2:515
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!tut!ra!uwasa.fi!hv
From: hv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama LAKE)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.os2
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION of comp.binaries.os2
Message-ID: <1990Jan9.220230.14165@uwasa.fi>
Date: 9 Jan 90 22:02:30 GMT
References: <676@banyan.UUCP>
Organization: University of Vaasa
Lines: 22

In article <676@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes:
>I am 100% FOR the creation of comp.binaries.os2 but 100% AGAINST
>having it moderated. Anyone who has been watching the current
>situation in comp.binaries.ibm.pc has seen just how much time
>and resources it takes to actually be a moderator of a high-volume
>binaries newsgroup and there aren't a lot of people who plain
>have the time and resources. My main reason for being against
>moderation is the bottleneck it creates. Rahul has a 4-6 week
>backup of binary postings due to testing and packing delays.

Oh no. Do you take responsibility if someone then send some viruses
and other little creatures (like bugs and so on)?

Definitely there is need for moderator. We shouldn't take c.p.i.b
and Rahul Dhesi as an example of NO-NO but as an example which should
take as a warning - as a situation which should be taken care of.
They only let it go too far.

-- 

				Harri Valkama (hv@uwasa.fi)
				anon. ftp site (128.214.12.3)