From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Subject: Re: guidelines for moderator replacement
Organization: AS&M Inc
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:21:32 GMT

In article <0105011F.atmg7d@dragon.enigami.mv.com> cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:

   In article <1992Aug11.232855.24903@athena.mit.edu> (news.groups), jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
   >In article <1992Aug11.154941.1590@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:

   This is the key flaw: *HOW* can it be shown that there is enough 
   dissatisfaction, if the people concerned (e.g. the group's readership)
   don't even know that the straw poll / discussion is taking place?!

I think Jonathan was proposing this as a *formal* step in the CFM
procedure.  Thus the CFSP would be posted to n.a.ng and any related
groups.  Dave's approval would be sufficient to get it posted to
the other moderated group.  (Only the first moderated group in
the Newsgroups list requires an Approved: line, as I understand;
I've never read the RFC.)

   A straw poll is requested to replace the moderator.  Discussion is
   not allowed.

Jonathan suggests that campaigning be postponed until the RFD.

                 The group thinks that the moderator is doing at least
   an adiquate job, that he is fair, etc.  The authors of the unpublished 
   posts are the only ones who know different.  But they can't communicate
   their objections to the group.

See my comment about the CFSP above.

   Protecting the poor moderator from adverse oppinion, at the expense
   of free speach, is just not worth it.

Free speach, as well as free speech, is preserved.

   >|> 2)  Non-appearance of the moderator during the discussion period is grounds 
   >|> for automatic replacement.  (If the person is on vacation, there should be a
   >|> substitute who can at least say "they won't be back till next month".)
   >
   >This should be explicitly spelled out.  And, furthermore, the amount of time
   >that the moderator has to respond should be explicitly spelled out.  And,
   >furthermore, if the moderator has posted an article recently saying, "I'm
   >going on vacation for a few weeks, things will be dead while I'm gone, please
   >be patient,"

   I agree with this.  For reasonable vacations.  For longer leaves of
   absense, either a new moderator should be selected, or a sub should
   be appointed.  Say for any periods longer than 1 month (which is arbitrary.
   Two weeks?  Six?  Two Months?).  But this is an event for the olympics
   to hammer out.

Indeed.  On with the Games! :-)

   What you are saying is that one person has absolute control over all
   changes to the net.  This is just not correct.

The net has given him the authority.  The net (or some portion) can
choose not to respect this authority.

   If necessary, he can be bypassed, although with the result that large 
   portions of the net will probably not accept the results, flame wars 
   will abound, control article counts will skyrocket, 'Forged' aprovals 
   will be come rampant, etc.

   Not Optimal.  

Agreed.  This is the point.  (Film at 11. :-)

   Until and unless proven otherwise, I think that Dave Lawrence
   it a reasonable person.  If he is shown that he made a bad decision
   (or at least that there is significant debate over it), he will take
   action.  Most moderators are quite reasonable about things like this,
   usually having a policy of posting the (rejected) article with a brief 
   statement that it is being posted over the moderator's objections.  At 
   least, those that I have come in contact with.

I think the fact that there is debate about it shows that there is a
need for changing the Guidelines in some way (especially since the
Guidelines say they're applicable only to creations).  I prefer
Jonathan's way (as I understand it), but a simpler modification is to
state that the 2-to-1, 100 excess rule applies to any operation on
groups: changing moderator, moderating, unmoderating, removing, as
well as creating.  I don't like it, but it's open to discussion.
I agree with Jonathan that the moderator deserves a little extra,
including avoiding harassment RFDs (without having to go to the
trouble of conducting a CFV to gain a six-month reprieve).
--
J Lee Jaap <jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681