taylor@intuitive.com (Dave Taylor) (05/10/91)
Hello all.
After much consideration, I've decided to step down as the moderator
of the Usenet newsgroup comp.society. It's been a fun and exciting
experience and I've enjoyed interacting with everyone, but it's time
to either let someone else moderate the group (*) or simply to let
it become unmoderated.
If you're interested in moderating the group, please drop me a note post
haste: on June 1 I will officially resign and request that the group become
unmoderated if no-one has stepped forward by then.
Thanks!
-- Dave Taylor
Intuitive Systems
Mountain View, California
taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
(*) Note: moderation is more than simply checking the articles on Usenet.
There's also a popular digest version of the group -- The Computers &
Society Digest -- that would have to either be carried along, disbanded,
or otherwise dealt with. On the other hand, as has become obvious,
this group has become rather a low-volume one, so even a straight
reflecting of all news articles to the mailing list might work...
thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (05/11/91)
Even if someone does 'step forward', why don't we have a vote on the moderator. I realize that this isn't the 'way things are done' on the net -- I've been told this often by many folks -- but it might be a nice way 'to do things on the net.' Folks always have agendas one way or the other. I think that anyone desiring to moderate comp.society should explain 'why' they want to do it and what changes they see happening. I consider the net a very important form of communication and I'd like to see a precedent for 'netmocracy.' I reject the 'we are anarchists' argument. Worst that can happen is that the discussion becomes unmoderated. Best that happens is that we develop a process which can be used or not used elsewhere on the net. Considering what has happened on Prodigy and Genie, some precedent might be nice, and what better group to do it? >(*) Note: moderation is more than simply checking the articles on Usenet. > There's also a popular digest version of the group -- The Computers & > Society Digest -- that would have to either be carried along, disbanded, > or otherwise dealt with... Dave can you elaborate a little more on what you do. How much time it takes? What are the headaches? How much experience does someone need? Thom Gillespie
taylor (Dave Taylor) (05/11/91)
Thom Gillespie suggests: > Even if someone does 'step forward', why don't we have a vote on the > moderator. I think that's an excellent idea and I strongly support it. In fact, let's phrase it this way; if you're interested in possibly taking over as moderator/coordinator of comp.society, please submit a position statement for inclusion in the group. >> Note: moderation is more than simply checking the articles on Usenet. >> There's also a popular digest version of the group -- The Computers & >> Society Digest -- that would have to either be carried along, disbanded, >> or otherwise dealt with... > > Dave can you elaborate a little more on what you do. How much time it > takes? What are the headaches? How much experience does someone need? The basic sequence of events is that all articles received are screened for appropriateness -- and returned if I don't believe it's apropos for comp.society -- then submitted to the netnews system directly, with a chance to edit the text first. At that point I fix typographic errors, format things consistently, cut down on the quoting of previous articles, remove signatures, and similar editorial fine tuning. Once posted, a copy is also saved in a mail folder. Every few weeks (usually when I've accumulated 500+ lines of information in the mail folder) I then run the mailbox through a set of filters and shell scripts, which then generates a standard ARPANet-style Digest version of that accumulated set of messages. That is mailed, automatically, to a variety of redistribution points, including a major server on BITNET that sends it out to a few hundred subscribers. There are also a number of individual subscribers -- people that don't have access to Usenet -- but the entire mailing list is about 60 entries total. That's the basic sequence of events, with the additional work required for upkeep, maintenance, and similar. The tools are very stable and haven't been modified in at least two years. They are available (indeed, they've been previously posted to comp.soources.unix about three years ago as a moderation and digestification package) and would be sent to whomever was chosen as the new group coordinator. More subtle involvement includes scanning relevant professional journals for articles of possible interest to the readership and then working with the authors/publications to obtain written permission to redistribute the information directly. (I've worked with Academic Computing, among others, in this regard). Total time involved, once things settle down, is probably about an hour or two a week, depending on traffic levels and acceptance criteria. Hoping to have someone appear out of the woodwork, -- Dave Taylor Intuitive Systems Mountain View, California taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) (05/13/91)
Thom, I would hope that comp.society becomes much more active than it is now. Right now, many comp.society issues are discussed much more frequently on the moderated RISKS board and the unmoderated comp.org.eff.talk. Rapid reposne time is important in my view .... if the board gets 20 messages a day instead of 20 messages a month, the moderator will be superbusy in processing the messages. I would not be surprised if Peter Neuman spends 50% time moderating RISKS since I get several full (15K-25K) each week, most weeks, with few lapses. Peter has played a major role in pormoting RISKS, and now has columns based on RISKS in the ACM's SIGSOFT Newsletter and Communications of the ACM. Perhaps tis is an exceptional case, but one which is pertienet because RISKS posts many messages and discussions which should appear here too (and are not cross posted). I also read unmoderated boards and sometimes they develop flame wars for a few days now & then. Other than these occassional brushfires, I see no real problems w/the unmoderated boards, especially when the traffic volume is relatively high. I realize that alot of the higher volume can be more noise than signal ... but again, that depends ... I would like to see a moderator who can develop comp.society into a livlier forum. Absent that, I don't see a fundamental problem with an unmoderated board. Moderating is alot of work, and Dave has done a good job. I imagine that the routine can become a bit much after a while since the moderator should be checking his/her mail for messages to edit/forward several times each 24 hour period..... (IMHO). Maybe the moderator becomes a slave to the board (grin) w/o vacation, sick-leave, etc.. /R