From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: sci.anthropology (LONG)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 15:30:22 GMT
Summary:  Let's think about moderation one more week.

I summarize the sci.anthropology discussion as it
has crossed my screen:
A.  non-issues (more strictly, issues whose resolutions
    do not appear to affect the votes of those considering
    sci.anthropology):
    1.  name:  essentially everyone thinks
        "sci.anthropology" is OK.  Some prefer other
        formulations, but the weight of opinion is
        clear.
    2.  hierarchy, ...:  "sci.anthropology.physical",
        "sci.anthropology.questions", ... have appeal,
        but there will be time enough to get to those
        once sci.anthropology has proven its success.
    3.  gateways:  there are a number of mailing lists
        on anthropologic subjects.  Maybe some of us
        will work to set up gateways to or from them
        from or to sci.anthropology; those seem to be
        separable questions, though, and won't affect
        the current vote.
    4.  social-technologic accessibility:  a number of
        correspondents have made useful suggestions
        about how to make a sci.anthropology newsgroup
        into a respected professional tool (encourage
        departments to get on-line; help AAA construct
        an address server; ...).  Again, whatever the
        issues are, they do not seem to affect the
        vote for sci.anthropology.
B.  issues:
    1.  CFV:
        a.  mechanics:  no one has volunteered to
            host the vote-collection, or offered me any
            guidance on automating software.  I suppose
            I'll just set up some robust mechanism on
            my home node.
        b.  hesitation:  the vote still looks close.
            EVERYone who has written to me supports
            sci.anthropology, but we might be under
            the 100-vote quorum.  No one seems to mind
            that a CFV might fail, but I want everyone
            to understand that that is a possibility.
            The consequence, from what I understand,
            is that net.gods refuse for six months any
            subsequent effort to create a sci.anthro-
            pology.  On balance, I think we're right
            to proceed.  Let's vote!
    2.  moderation:  the majority of respondents have
            written, "gosh, look how awful sci.archaeology
            and sci.history have been; oh, well, go ahead
            without moderation, the advantages still out-
            weigh the disadvantages", or words close to
            those.  A few people, though, have swayed me
            considerably with the observation that the
            target audience for sci.anthropology is
            culturally different from that for, say,
            comp.unix.msdos.  Yes, sci.anthropology readers
            can, on a technical level, simply ignore ("kill")
            messages that are ill-considered, un-anthropologic,
            or hostile.  However, one of the aims common to many
            of us is to invite the anthropologic community onto
            the global electronic village, and first encounters
            with the bombardments of the cyberNazis and anti-anti-
            anti-...-Turcophiles are sure to convince them that
            the internets are Bad Ideas (and maybe they'd be
            right ...).

            Here's the inventory:
            a.  costs:
                1.  responsiveness.  If I act as moderator (and
                    there have been no other volunteers), I'm
                    sure to introduce lags of eight to one hundred
                    fifty hours.
                2.  my time.  I know I can make decisions promptly,
                    and I'll automate as much as I can, but I'm
                    operating on a deficit now, and I'm still unsure
                    whether I'm willing to shoulder this responsibility.
            b.  benefits:
                1.  moderation => better writing => more efficient
                    reading => ...
                2.  a well-moderated group will be much more inviting
                    to the not-already-online.

I propose this:  let's discuss moderation for another long week,
until around 17 April 1992, and then hold a vote 20 April 1992-
20 May 1992 (tentatively).  OK?
-- 

Cameron Laird                           +1 713-579-4613
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)
cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net)    +1 713-996-8546
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.comics