tes@whuts.UUCP (04/17/87)
<*>
We now reach the moment of truth on the moderated rec.food.wine issue.
The question is, will YOU do something about it?
The responses to date from the "Powers" is that we have not shown
sufficient interest. They have seen a low number of responses,
and what was available they perceived to be anti-moderated wine
group. If I interpret their comments correctly, then we need:
100 - 150 POSITIVE RESPONSES to be treated SERIOUSLY!
This is a thrice-edited article. The original railed about how
I have never seen 100 responses on any topic, even the demise of
net.bizarre or the worst sophistry in talk.religion.misc.
At least we have a "guideline". My recommendation is to write
to the two people in power, make certain that both are addressed:
{cbosgd|ihnp4}!seismo!rick and,
{cbosgd|ihnp4}!gatech!spaf
It is obvious that if you let "the other guy" do this, we will not
have a group. If we do not take immediate action, then we will
abandon our rights to high-quality articles in areas that we, not
just the "powers", are interested in. (Please "cc" me in all
responses, but send your comments directly.)
I will re-post the "charter" in rec.food.drink for your comments.
We now reach the moment of truth on the moderated rec.food.wine issue.
The question is, will YOU do something about it?
--
----- Terry Sterkel
-====---- AT&T Bell Laboratories
--------- {clyde|harvard|cbosgd|allegra|ulysses|ihnp4}!whuts!tes
----- [opinions are obviously only my own]max@oz.berkeley.edu.UUCP (04/18/87)
Terry Sterkel has proposed to do a great deal of leg work, with obvious good intentions. I have followed the discussion. With serious respect for Terry's efforts, I strongly disagree that we need a *moderated* wine group, with or without other drinks. Jeezus, there is little enough traffic about wine without potentially scaring off more of it by forcing people into a specific format like the one Terry has proposed. This is serious, folks! I was an avid reader of net.wine from 1983 through 1985, and have recently returned. I myself was driven out, as were others I know, not by the presence of "noise" but by the *absence* of postings about wines. Now, one of the best things about the unmoderated groups is the unpredictability and individuality of anarchic submissions. Anyone can make a point, in the format THEY choose, and people do, spontaneous and unintimidated by an established style. It is not left to the moderator to anticipate the best way to orchestrate everyone's postings. It seems to me that enthusiasm for more wine postings would be better channeled into keeping the wine talk active rather than forcing us into a format that sounds, in the charter, a lot like mod.terry.sterkel. I hope that Terry, or anyone else, will not presume to change an unmoderated group into a moderated one without an overwhelming consensus from the membership. No such consensus has been evident in the postings. To quote Jeff Winslow, "if you want to see articles on wine, then start posting them..." Max Hauser, UC Berkeley EECS
spaf@gt-karloff.uucp (Gene Spafford) (04/19/87)
Terry Sterkel posted a complaint about the non-creation of a moderated
wines group. The reason I, personally, don't think it is needed is
partially covered by Max Hauser's article (to which this is a
followup). Basically, I haven't seen much of a need. Terry has posted
on this subject a couple of times, and the usual response (other than a
couple of "yes" responses) were comments that there isn't sufficient
volume, that the charter of the group he has proposed is too narrow,
and that there is basically no need for the group. A quick look
through the last month's postings in rec.food.drink tends to bear that
out.
I suggested to Terry that he start a mailing list discussion group and
see if he is able to sustain a reasonable volume of discussion over
a 2 or 3 month period. If so, then there is certainly sufficient reason
and precedent to create a moderated group. However, if the list gets
only 20 subscribers and 2 articles a week, then there is little reason
to create a separate group...especially when rec.food.drink is hardly
being utilized.
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf@Gatech.EDU
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafeamator@homxc.UUCP (T.NECEDA) (04/20/87)
In article <18448@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, max@oz.berkeley.edu.UUCP writes: > Terry Sterkel has proposed to do a great deal of leg work, with > obvious good intentions. I have followed the discussion. With > serious respect for Terry's efforts, I strongly disagree that > we need a *moderated* wine group, with or without other drinks. > > Now, one of the best things about the unmoderated groups is the > unpredictability and individuality of anarchic submissions. I agree 100%. I personally like to broadcast my ignorance occasionally to this news.group (rec.food.drink) and I would be less inclined to make a submission to a moderated group. Tom Neceda {akgua, allegra, houxm, ihnp4}!homxc!amator AT&T - Bell Laboratories # include <standard.disclaimer>
spp@oz.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) (04/20/87)
I have to agree with Max -- there's no way we would want to create a MODERATED wine newsgroup! There's little enough wine traffic as is that the creation of an UNMODERATED newsgroup would be barely justified -- I assume the reason "net.wines" was not preserved was that the traffic was too LOW. You only need a MODERATED group if the traffic is so high you need to cut some of it out. Also, from many sites it is difficult or impossible to post things to a given moderated newsgroup, because you need to be able to mail to the moderator, which is often impossible. This means that even if the moderator posted everything he received we'd still have less wine news than we do now. For unmoderated newsgroups posting an item is much easier. I'd like to point out that this discussion on creating a new moderated winegroup started before I became aware that rec.food.drinks was the new place for wine traffic. There's probably others in the same situation as myself. steve
tjt@styx.UUCP (Tim Tessin) (04/20/87)
In article <18448@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> max@oz.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Max Hauser) writes: > Terry Sterkel has proposed to do a great deal of leg work, with > obvious good intentions. I have followed the discussion. With > serious respect for Terry's efforts, I strongly disagree that > we need a *moderated* wine group, with or without other drinks. > ... stuff inbetween ... > in the postings. To quote Jeff Winslow, "if you want to see > articles on wine, then start posting them..." > > Max Hauser, UC Berkeley EECS I reluctantly agree with Max. I personally enjoy stuff on all sorts of beverages including wine, beer and spirits. All sorts of beverages should have equal footing (and there is always the "n" key). True, there is always some "noise" in every group but except for the "hell" discussion it seemed under control. (If you don't use 'rn' you are really missing some good functionality by using the 'k' key and kill files!). Tim Tessin Phone: (415) 422-8971 / 422-4758 ARPA: tjt@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lbe s.edu pt