From: ssircar@canon.com (Subrata Sircar)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: changing a newsgroup's moderator
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:57:36 GMT
Reply-To: ssircar@canon.com (Subrata Sircar)
Organization: SPAMIT
Originator: news@nimaster


Not that anyone is really reading this thread anymore...  :<)

jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>No, the straw poll, or whatever you want to call it, would be official. 
>Otherwise, whast's the point?

>Yes, it would be posted to the moderated newsgroup, or to the associated
>discussion group if there is one.  Yes, Dave Lawrence would have to get
>permission from the moderator of the group to do this.  Refusal by the
>moderator to allow the message to be posted, and or failure of the moderator
>to respond after a reasonable amount of time, would both be grounds for
>skipping the poll completely and going on to the next step :-).

This is exactly what I don't understand.  What is the difference between
this and the current RFD/CFV process?

Your straw poll is "official" by being posted to an appropriate group; RFDs
are official by being posted to news.announce.newgroups *and* (by force of
custom) to the appropriate group.  The moderator will know about it.  The lack
of an explicit requirement to post to the appropriate group is a red herring;
remember what happened when people though the SF-reorg message wasn't posted
to an affected group?

The current process ensures that the moderator will know about it, one way
or another.

Nor need the moderator be ceaselessly badgered - any RFD on a subject raised
within the last year draws at least a mild protest (see the unix reorg), and
an RFD on anything within the last six months draws loud wailing and gnashing
of teeth, with the word "Guidelines" prominently featured.

The storms of protest usually torpedo the reorg in the RFD stage, since most
sysadmins won't accept the group if there is doubt about such things.

In short, I think your concerns about the moderator are adequately covered by
the Guidelines and normal procedures for RFD/CFV.

Now, if Dave Lawrence doesn't think so, that's another issue.

>a) If this step fails, the discussion is truncated after a week instead of
>three, thus conserving bandwidth.

That's a drop in the bucket, compared to most other ways of wasting bandwidth.

>b) It separates the process of determining the level of dissatisfaction from
>the process of finding candidates for replacing the moderator.  This is, I
>think, a good thing.

I don't see a real benefit to this.  Could you elaborate?  In fact, usually
determining the dissatisfaction generates several replacement moderators.

>c) Without the poll, under the current guidelines, the moderator in question
>has to defend himself for the entire discussion period.

Just because the moderator "feels compelled" to do so, in most cases where it
is unnecessary, should we take that into consideration?  If he really is
"compelled", what we put in the rules doesn't matter.

>d) Without the poll, a moderator could be challenged over and over, without
>six month delays between challenges, since the current guidelines require a
>delay only after a failed vote, not after a failed discussion.

See above.  Custom has the force of law, most times.

>Why don't
>we just wait until the person who said he was going to post a set of
>guidelines does so, and then conduct a poll of some sort on whether or not
>people think the additional poll is necessary?

OK.

>a) They explicitly say that the moderator must be notified of the pending
>action against his position, and spell out how that notification should occur,
>and what should happen if he fails to acknowledge it or refuses to allow the
>RFD to be posted in the moderated group.

I think the current customs handle this.

>b) They explicitly say that after a discussion to replace a moderator that
>does not get to the voting stage, a similar discussion cannot take place for a
>certain amount of time.

See above.

>c) They explicitly say that they are allowed to be used to replace moderators,
>rather than explicitly saying that they ARE NOT allowed to be used to replace
>moderators, as they do now.

Where do they say that?  They do say they aren't guidelines for anything else,
but that doesn't mean what you said.

-- 
Subrata Sircar | ssircar@canon.com | Prophet & SPAMIT Charter Member
Canon Information Systems and I do not speak for each other on all things.
"I wish people wouldn't instantly assume that I am an idiot." (Valentine)
"A restaurant is a whorehouse that does food instead of sex." (Roger Lustig)