nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (08/06/85)
I seem to have ruffled a few feathers with my statement announcing mod.general and the "abolition" of net.general. Please permit an explaination. When I first heard about mod.general, the decision to create this newsgroup was already made. Mail was sent to all the current moderators, asking for someone to moderate this group; I volunteered. The description of mod.general included the line "to replace net.general." For that reason, I stated that I would "abolish net.general in the near future." That statement seemed to elicit quite a reaction; therefore net.general will remain in place for the time being. mod.general will also remain in place (if you do not have the group, you should). I will accept nearly anything, except that posted inappropriately, or that that is libelous. Two good examples I have seen recently have been calls for papers and the announcement of a new department head at UNC. -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa "Have you no women beyond the stars?" "I see, You have a primary and secondary reproductive cycle. It is an inefficient system; you should chnage it." -Who said it, what episode?
bob@plus5.UUCP (Bob Simpson) (08/08/85)
In article <784@abnji.UUCP>, nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: (With excerpts from other places) > When I first heard about mod.general, the decision to create this newsgroup > was already made. > > The description of mod.general included the line "to replace net.general." > For that reason, I stated that I would "abolish net.general in the near > future." That statement seemed to elicit quite a reaction; therefore > net.general will remain in place for the time being. > ... but final decision on abolishing net.general now awaits reconsideration > by the moderators. I thought that the charter of the moderated groups was to run restricted publication newsgroups. I don't see how this gives the moderators a mandate to interfere with the functioning of a general newsgroup. I don't consider a decision by this group to be valid or binding in any way. nyssa's statements imply that decisions about the management of the net are to be handled by a small number of self appointed "volunteers". I don't believe that this is a good idea, and I certainly don't remember relinquishing my prerogatives to the moderators or any other group. > The difference between mod.general and net.announce will be that net.announce > will be for news about the net, mod.general will be for news from the world, > at least that is how I see it. I don't see the conflict in the two charters, and I certainly don't see enough traffic to warrant splitting the groups. If there isn't a clear idea of what mod.general is to concern itself with, why do we want to create it? (I consider this to be a separate subject from the killing of net.general.) By the way, who are the faceless people who sent the "kill net.general" message and asked the moderators to take the responsibility for creating mod.general? I think that they would like to leap to their defense on this issue... -- Bob Simpson USPS Plus Five Computer Services 765 Westwood Dr. St. Louis, MO 63105 AT&T 314-725-9492 UUCP ..!{ihnp4,cbosgd,seismo}!plus5!bob The opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Plus Five Computer Services, its management, employees, stockholders, subsidiaries, affiliates, or related entities.