From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Summary: A prospective co-moderator responds to Sidles 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:30:38 GMT

John Sidles raises a number of questions, some of which have been dealt
with by other people already, but I will hack away at them anyway ...

>If there hasn't been much discussion, what does that say about the need
>for sci.physics.research?  

Very little; mainly what it says is that people don't post much over the
Christmas holidays.  Check out the total sci.physics traffic during the
ten days before Matt's posting for evidence of that.  There certainly
has been plenty of discussion of sci.physics.research since ...

>I hope these guys are not all scientologists!  There would be no
>way to replace them.  Sounds like a prescription for a self-perpetuating
>aristocracy to me.  Good thing the Constitution isn't set up this way.

Well, I for one am most emphatically not a Scientologist. :-)

The question of how to pick replacement moderators is a fair one, and I am
not sure the method proposed by Matt is clearly the best one.  However, it
is likely to be at least serviceable and will ensure that *somebody* picks
up the slack, which is more likely to be a concern than whether that
somebody is acceptable to the readership.  Some moderated groups have died,
or at least hibernated, for lack of a moderator ...  I think it would be
appropriate for the remaining co-moderators to post the names of suggested
replacements and see what response they get before actually picking
someone, but I also think that in practice the whole process will be less
contentious than it might appear.

>Specifically, let each candidate review the last week's submissions
>and tell whether they're acceptable or not (in a line or two), then
>post the reviews.

Fat chance.  I'm a working physicist and have more important things to do --
a phrase that one will hear (and I have heard) repeatedly from working
physicists in connection with sci.physics.  I devoutly hope that the volume
of articles submitted for sci.physics.research, let alone accepted, will be
well under half of what it is in sci.physics, and even *that* volume is
likely great enough to tax the available time of the four co-moderators that
have already stepped up, even with the work load split four ways.  And you
want to undo that split, pile seven days' worth of stuff together in an
overtrafficked group, and have us do a review?

I wouldn't mind doing one *day's* worth of articles, however, if the other
prospective co-moderators are agreeable and if some of those articles (the
ones that wouldn't appear in sci.physics.research anyway owing to their
administrative nature, like this one ...) aren't reviewed.  The timing is
somewhat unfortunate, as I will be on travel or otherwise unavailable for
much of next week, but if we can agree on a target day and a date for
submitting our reviews (at least two or three days later), it might be
feasible.

>I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
>"rejectable".  If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
>need sci.physics.research?  And if the rejected fraction is large,
>then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?

It would *certainly* be fairly large.  Matt has already answered your
question, so I won't.

>Why
>theorize about how well sci.physics.research will work, when it is
>reasonably easy to gather and post the experimental data?

Problem is, the data are bogus, because the experiment is inappropriate.
The whole point of sci.physics.research is to provide a venue for
postings of a different nature than those currently dominating sci.physics.

>What bothers me most about sci.physics.research is that it's main
>function seems to be (or could become) one of exclusion, in contrast
>to other other specialty newsgroups (e.g., sci.math.numerics),
>which have sharply deliminted subject areas.  Perhaps I'm wrong... 

You are.

> So let's see the data.

Well, for "data," check out the several followups to this thread from
people saying "I/my collaborators don't read sci.physics, but I/we would
read sci.physics.research."

>As usual when social engineering is proposed, the proponents include
>those who will enjoy higher status under the new regime.  It is
>remarkable that the above objections, which are only common sense,
>have not been addressed by any of the presumptive moderators, other
>than by hand-waving reassurances.

I'm doing it now.  BTW, lest there be any misunderstanding, this particular
prospective co-moderator definitely does not aspire to net-guruhood; I have
been in that role before, and I don't like it.  "Higher status" should not
be confused with a willingness to put one's money (more accurately, time)
where one's mouth is ...

>In summary, there is a substantial down-side to forming a new group.
>Why meddle with the current system, which works OK?  

Look.  The point is that the current system **doesn't** work OK.  The
abominable signal/noise ratio chases off precisely the people who could
contribute to improving that ratio, not merely by exchanging arcana
among themselves but by being available as resources for the whole
readership.  (Nor is sci.physics unique in this regard; I can think of
at least four other newsgroups where real, certified experts have given
up in disgust because the place is such a waste of time, and all four of
those groups are the worse for the experts' departure.)  It's more to the
point to think of sci.physics.research as a relatively minor repair that
those who perceive the system as broken agree should be made.

As for the down side, remember that good old unmoderated sci.physics
will still exist!  It's not like a conspiracy of pseudo-intellectuals
is out to dominate the net by destroying existing fora for open discussion.
If that was in danger of happening, I wouldn't support sci.physics.research
either; but it's not, and I do.

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"