From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:17:37 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan9.182355.20379@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> [...]
>      I think the difference here is between discussions that have
>      new information and discussions that have no substantial new
>      information.  Quantum mechanics interpretations should certainly
>      not be a proscribed subject.  On the other hand, if no one
>      is saying anything new, perhaps we should move on.

New in what context? New relative to what has been published or
new relative to what has been posted in the last two months.
My suggestion would be to eliminate discussions that are answered in
a standard ungraduate physics curriculum or that have become repetitive
in the last few months. I would not object to repetition over longer
time periods.

>[...]
>      And I hope to a great extent the group's charter reflects
>      the feelings of the prospective moderators, since we did discuss it.
>      However, to a certain extent a charter is not and cannot be
>      a manual to allow bureaucratic precision in selection of
>      which articles to post.  First, the variety of posts is unpredictable,
>      and it is difficult to handle all of the cases a priori.  Second,
>      there will be an adjustment process if the group passes, I'm sure
>      we'll all look at the articles that are and are not accepted by 
>      the other moderators and adjust accordingly.  Finally, we're all
>      human and there will be differences, no matter how hard we try.

Of course that is all true. But I still think it is important to have
a clear charter that allows a reasonably objective selection criteria.

>[...]
> >1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. You need to
> >be able to reference the charter when you give the reason for rejecting
> >an article and calling someone a crackpot is not good form especially for
> >someone in a position of authority (even the limited authority of
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >a newsgroup moderator). Miss Manners would not approve. It is also too
> 
>      I'll say.  However, I think all of us have enough politesse
>      to prevent open rudeness in such a situation.  The phrase has
>      the advantage of giving a vivid picture of what is being precluded.

If one of the four main criteria for selection is to eliminate crackpot
postings then I do not see how you avoid explicitly referring to it when you
given a reason for rejecting some articles. Certainly this would not always
be necessary but I assume, at the least, you would do it for a first time
poster.

> [...]'Not even wrong' is a succinct way of saying that the phrase
>      'muons decay because of their innate desire to be free' would
>      be unacceptable.  In my view, this would not necessarily apply
>      to postings about philosophy of QM.

I doubt if you will have many posters that submit articles like that.
I am not clear about the criteria for rejecting articles under
the crackpot (not even wrong) item. I think you need to spell it out
more clearly. It should not be a catch all to reject the articles that the
moderators think are inappropriate without explaining the criteria.

> [...] >2. If you want to put limits on the quantity of articles and have this
> >influence the decision about what articles get accepted this must be
> >in the charter.
> 
>      This might be a good idea, as long as the 'limits' are flexible
>      and only targets.

I think you can be as flexible as you want but you need to spell it out
in the charter.  You could propose a charter to only allow the articles
the moderators like if you want. You would probably loose the vote but
no one would complain that you were not clear about what you propose.

There is nothing wrong with saying that an attempt will
be made to limit the articles to X per day unless the quality of submissions
suggests that a higher number is more appropriate. My own feeling is that you
should simply define a clear selection criteria and then let the chips
fall where they may. As a result you might want to modify the selection
criteria or split off into more groups or who knows what.

> [...] Maybe we should be more positive in what we are talking about.
>      In my view, we should encourage vigourous and substantial discussion
>      in all areas of physics.

I agree it would be a good idea to put emphasis on the positive goals
of the group in the charter.

Paul Budnik