From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<MATT.92Dec15140220@physics.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:03:55 GMT

>>>>> On 15 Dec 92 14:02:20, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) said:

	Matt> I don't think that changing sci.physics from an unmoderated to a
	Matt> moderated newsgroup would be a good idea; I do, however, think that we
	Matt> could use a new newsgroup, sci.physics.moderated.  (Please note that I
	Matt> am not talking about the elimination of sci.physics, simply the
	Matt> creation of a new newsgroup in addition to it.  Please also note that
	Matt> the name sci.physics.moderated is not set in stone; it is the first
	Matt> name that popped into my head.)

	Matt> If you read sci.physics, you'll see immediately two things.  First, it
	Matt> is a fairly high-volume newsgroup; and second, it is almost completely
	Matt> unused for professional discussion between physicists.  Several of my
	Matt> fellow grad students, for example, have told me "I tried reading it,
	Matt> but gave up."

	Matt> Sophisticated newsreading software and killfiles do help the situation
	Matt> somewhat---I use them---but ultimately they are rather crude tools.
	Matt> That, after all, is why we don't just put everything in one big
	Matt> newsgroup.

	Matt> I've been on the Net for quite a while now, and it is now several
	Matt> orders of magnitude larger than it was when I first started reading
	Matt> news.  It has had to accommodate to that growth in several ways, and
	Matt> one of them has been to add more newsgroups, which make finer and
	Matt> finer distinctions between their subject matter.  Almost all of the
	Matt> groups that existed in, say, 1983, have split into multi-group
	Matt> hierarchies, and it is clear that this process is continuing.  I
	Matt> believe that it is time for us to talk about this process for
	Matt> sci.physics.  I don't think we need a terribly elaborate hierarchy
	Matt> yet, but we should at least take the first step, and create a
	Matt> moderated subgroup.

	Matt> If we get some volunteers for the moderator of sci.physics.moderated,
	Matt> then we can start discussing moderation policy, and issue a formal RFD
	Matt> and, later, a CFV.  In anticipation of that, I have cross-posted this
	Matt> article to news.groups.

Here! Here! I'll second this even with the name as-is.  I for one normally
am not subscribe to sci.physics, because it is too long and redundant.  I
Only read this group when I have work I'm really trying to aviod doing.
I'm sure most of us are two busy to garentee to read through 50+ some articles
posted here a day to see what passes the moderation policy criteria.  However,
if we can figure out a way to split that equally amoung 4-5 people I'd be
happy to be one of them.

                                              Bill
--
"Yeti!  Saw them in the London Underground twenty years ago.  Ghosts!
A headless woman used to walk through my bedroom at midnight.  Mermaids?
Grandpa was rescued from the Marie Celeste by one.  Vampires?  I always
wondered where my dad went to at night.  Telepathy?  Right now you're
thinking that I'm talking crap.  So what can you tell me that I won't
believe in?" - Andrew Hunt, "CAT'S CRADLE: WITCH MARK"