From: rtw@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (R. T. Wurth)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: changing a newsgroup's moderator
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:46:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs/Holmdel, NJ

Here's a new viewpoint on this discussion:  What makes everyone think
that USENET has control (or should have control) over moderatorships?

Historically, back in the days when all moderated groups were part of
the fa.* (From the Arpanet) hierarchy, (although the term "moderated
newsgroups" hadn't been invented), the postings were the personal mail
of the moderator, that happened to be posted to USENET.  If you didn't
like the moderator, you were free to try to collect your own
correspondents and subscribers, start your own mailing list, and
convince the backbone cabal to carry it (overcoming "Fear and Loathing
in the Clouds" along the way), and finally find a gateway site to
convert the e-mail into a post.

I can think of two classes of examples, offhand, where USENET control
over moderation is highly inappropriate, and it is the ultimate in
presumptuousness for us to even speak of trying to overthrow the
moderators.

1.)  The comp.dcom.telecom, historically, is a reposting of items from
the independent mailing list Telecom-Digest.  I seem to recall some gaps
in coverage when the moderator did not have USENET access, but continued
publishing the mailing list.  There was even a time when the newsgroup
"moderator" was not the mailing list moderator, and the sole function of
the "moderator" was to provide a two-way conduit, forwarding replies to
the real moderator, and posting digests to the newsgroup.  I suppose
USENET could replace the newsgroup moderator, but the result would be
very chaotic, since Telecom-Digest, the mailing list, would probably
still be published by the original moderator.  Overthrowing the c.d.t
moderator would merely leave the net with lots of people clamoring for a
new newsgroup for re-postings of the Telecom-Digest.  The newly-created
newsgroup for re-publishing Computer Underground Digest is in the same
boat, as are several others.

2.)  Similar to this case but even more complicated are those groups
where the moderator holds their(*) post _ex-officio_.  I may be wrong,
but I think that some of the standards groups (comp.std.*) have or had
as their moderators the USENIX Association liasons to the corresponding
standards-writing bodies/working groups/subcommittees.  Similarly, I
think (again, I may be wrong) the comp.risks moderator (who is really
the Risks-List mailing list moderator) holds that title by virtue of
some ACM appointment as the chair of some committee or subcommittee, or
as editor of some ACM paper publication.

Thus, I argue that any proposal of a system for changing moderators must
confine itself to those newsgroups controlled by USENET, and recognize
the limited competence of USENET to control those newsgroups having an
independent existence.

(*) To ward off the grammar flames and gratuitous "[sic]"'s, I am quite
aware of the _apparent_ mis-match in number between this pronoun and its
antecedent, secure in the knowledge that only the small-minded are
unaware that there is ample precedent for this usage (of the plural form
of a pronoun as a non-geneder-specific singular) going back even to
Shakespeare's time.

   Rich Wurth / HO 2J-110B / AT&T-Bell Labs / 101 Crawfords Corner Rd. 
   PO Box 3030 / Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030 / 908 949 8060 / Fax: 908 949 8101
   mtuxj!rtw or rtw@mtuxj.ATT.COM (Mail to rtw@cbnewsj.att.com may be lost.)