Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: guidelines for moderator replacement
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:59:27 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug11.232855.24903@athena.mit.edu>, 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:
> |> 	Jonathan's complaints about the moderator NOT knowing is a red herring. 
> |> If the RFD is xposted to the moderated group (as it should be), then the
> |> moderator does read the message and know about the discussion.
> 
> And every time somebody decides to get on the moderator's back, (a) Dave
> Lawrence has to deal with the RFD and (b) the moderator has to deal with it as
> well, even if the only person who really wants to replace the moderator is the
> one posting the RFD.

	Oooo!  Poor babies!  Excuse the sarcasm but *that comes with the
territory*.  If you can't spare 30 seconds to tell someone "that just failed
two months ago, try again in four months" perhaps you need to quit one of your
jobs.

> I'm sorry that you don't think a moderator deserves enough consideration to
> not make trouble for him unless it has been proven that there is a significant
> amount of dissatisfaction with his performance

	On the contrary, I have already posted that moderation is a time
consuming and thankless task, but moderators are already reading and rejecting
invalid posts.  You're attempting to paint a picture of moderators being
email-bombed with bogus RFDs.  How many are right now being bombed with bogus
posts?  Who is going to waste their time?  A simple email back to their
sysadmin is sufficient.

>  As a Usenet user, I agree
> that it is imperative that if a moderator really isn't doing the job, it must
> be possible to replace him.  As a moderator, however, I feel very strongly
> that I have a right to expect the same system that chose me (quite
> overwhelmingly) as moderator in the first place, to protect me against
> unwarranted harassment from individuals who are dissatisfied with my
> performance, *unless* there are enough such individuals that it is clear that
> my performance is lacking and I need to answer for it.

	And the 2/3, 100 vote rule will do that quite adequately.

	Good moderators have nothing to lose by letting such an RFD go to a
vote, do they?

> |> 	Depending on which group is being discussed, a straw poll may not be
> |> needed.  After all, if the moderator has abandoned their duties, why isn't 10
> |> people enough to change moderators?  Why isn't one person sufficient in such a
> |> case?
> 
> Note that this is also, as you put it, a "red herring," since no one who has
> suggested a straw poll has given a definite number that they think should be
> required.  Maybe when choosing such a number, 10 would be the number that
> ended up being chosen.

	No, it's not a red herring.  It can happen.  It may have already
happened.

> If a moderator really HAS abandoned their [sic] duties, and there is interest
> in the group, then it should be EASY to find 10, or 25, or even 50 people who
> want to replace him.  If you can't find 25 people before a discussion, I doubt
> you're going to find 100 after the discussion, so the vote is going to fail
> anyway.  

	If the moderator has abandoned their position, then the RFD never gets
posted to that group, does it?
	Unless the RFD orginator has telepathy, potential voters are not
getting the message.

> If, on the other hand, the performance of the moderator ISN'T
> obviously unacceptable, then you're going to have a hard time finding even ten
> people who want to replace him.  Therefore, to answer your question, requiring
> a straw poll does not prevent needed moderator replacement discussions from
> taking place, and does help to prevent unneeded discussions from taking place.

	Going through a RFD/CFV won't be a problem for good moderators, either. 
AND it gaurantees that an RFD will not happen again for at least six months,
whereas a straw poll would do no such thing, unless you *add* to the
guidelines.  But then why duplicate a process that is already in place?
	Why make people vote twice?

> In addition to the problem of preventing the moderator from being harassed by
> replacement RFDs from dissatisfied readers, there is another important reason
> to prevent replacement discussions in response to only a small number of
> complaints -- they waste gobs of network bandwidth.  Comp.sources.unix and
> rec.arts.erotica are two examples of this.

	Waste in what way?  By actually promoting discussions in news.groups? 
If you add up all discussions about moderators for ten years you would not
match a single month of talk.* bandwidth.

> When Rich Salz was moderating comp.sources.unix in a way that many people
> found less than acceptable, there were "regular" discussions about replacing
> him.  

	A vote would have decided it one way or the other, for at least six
months.

> A discussion would start up, many people would flame about it on one
> side or the other, it would eventually die down with nothing happening, and
> then a new one would start up a few months later.  None of these discussions
> actually accomplished anything, and they wasted an awful lot of bandwidth. 

	A good argument for taking it to a vote.

> What's more, I must admit that even though I was one of the people arguing
> that his performance was not satisfactory, I doubt we could have gotten 100
> votes to replace him.  And there were an awful lot of people who would have
> voted against replacing him.

	Which lessons the chances of an RFD the next time around.  Frequently
people post "if failed last time, forget it" messages in response to changes
for newsgroups.

> Rec.arts.erotica is in a similar situation.  I seem to recall that there have
> now been at least three discussions, including this one, about replacing Evan.
> The first two didn't amount to anything, although this one might.  The first
> two were just a waste of bandwidth.

	Why?  Isn't discussion about newsgroups the raison d'etre of
news.groups?

> |> 	And if the moderator refuses to post the RFD, how are the potential
> |> readers supposed to know about the discussion?
> 
> I think that IF there is enough proven dissatisfaction with a moderator, the
> RFD for replacing him should, indeed, be posted in the moderated newsgroup. 
> But if you don't impose that requirement, then you have yet another problem --
> every time someone is dissatisfied with the moderator and posts an RFD, it
> appears in the newsgroup.  If a newsgroup's topic is controvercial enough,
> that's going to happen pretty frequently even if it never results in a
> moderator replacement.

	Not really.  That would fall neatly in the domain of Dave Lawrence to
head it off when it is posted to news.announce.newgroups.  This is one of the
times where the moderator not posting an RFD would be acceptable.

> |> 1)  The RFD is xposted to the group in question, and/or the .d group
> |> associated.
> 
> This is fine, but only if it has actually been shown that there is enough
> dissatisfaction that a vote to replace the moderator actually has a chance of
> succeeding.

	Why?  You are essentially asking someone to prove that they can succeed
before you'll let them ask people what they think.

> |> 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,

	Mmmm, three weeks during the discussion phase?

> 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 think this rule should be at least partially mitigated, because
> there are a lot of moderated newsgroups that are NOT high-traffic and that are
> NOT so busy that submissions to them have to be posted immediately.

	But then the RFD would not appear in the moderated group, and in such
an event Dave can head off such posts in news.announce.newgroups.  In any
event, a substitute should always be found for moderated groups.

> |> 3)  Straw polls should only be conducted if there is no clear consensus for
> |> changing the moderator.  One or two people arguing one side while there are a
> |> dozen or two arguing the other side is pretty much a clear consensus for action
> |> or non-action.
> 
> Such subjective qualifications as "no clear consensus" have no place in a set
> of specific guidelines that are trying to make the process as spelled out as
> possible.  As I've already pointed out multiple times, if the people who
> control things can't tell if the process that was followed was valid, they're
> just going to reject the whole thing.  

	Dave is quite capable of taking care of this, is he not?  He'll be
aware of the RFD, and if in his judgement there isn't a clear consensus for
taking a vote, he can always ask for a straw poll.
	It should not be mandatory, however.

> There's no way for Gene Spafford or
> Dave Lawrence, who probably don't want to read flame wars in news.groups, to
> tell if there was a "clear consensus" about changing the moderator when the
> discussion started.  The whole purpose of the official straw vote is to make
> this clear.

	Dave can always watch discussions about moderators.  It is an important
enough event concerning usenet, eh?

> |> 4)  The CFV should appear in the moderated group and/or the .d group
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> |> 5)  The normal vote limits apply to the change in moderator status.  Since
> |> abandoned groups are covered in 2), there is no need to worry about groups
> |> without a moderator that fail the vote.  They will be automatically changed to
> |> a new moderator.
> 
> Disagreed.  If the vote can't even get 100 people to vote to change the
> moderator, then I see no reason to replace him, even if he didn't show up
> during the discussion.  Maybe he knows that he's continuing to do his job and
> doesn't want to bother with flaming about it in news.groups because he know he
> won't lose the vote?

	Hey, the group is ABANDONED.  No one can contact the moderator.  He is
GONE.  This isn't a case of someone saying "I'm above all this".

> |> 	So there is no need for "new" procedures.  The above can be obtained by
> |> xposting the RFD/CFV to the groups in question.  Dave Lawrence should be able
> |> to mark the posts APPROVED if the moderator has abandoned the group.  The
> |> people participating can say whether a straw poll is needed.
> 
> The people who are participating are not objective, and therefore they cannot
> make this decision objectively.  

	Classic, just classic.

	The people voting are not objective enough to decide what is best?

	Tell me, if you were on the side saying "no vote/no change" and felt
that your side had more support, would you not call for a straw poll?  Could
you not take one YOURSELF, and then present that as evidence that a vote should
not be taken?

	Usenet readers are not stupid.

> Since if there is anybody at all opposing the
> replacement, they are going to call for a staw poll and make noise about the
> entire process being invalid if the poll doesn't happen, it makes more sense
> just to make the poll a formal part of the process from the beginning.

	No it doesn't.  Why require two votes if there is clearly a consensus
one way or the other?

	Making things harder for people who want change smacks of bureaucratic
nonsense.

> |> 	This is what largely goes on during the normal RFD/CFV melee.  Trying
> |> to get "new" procedures will only open up a can of worms.  The result either
> |> being ineffectual rules or unusable rules.
> 
> It seems obvious that the CURRENT rules are "unusable [sic]," since they have
> never successfully been used to replace a moderator, despite several attempts,
> including this one.  

	When has a moderator change proposal ever gone to a vote?

	And if they have all failed, doesn't this destroy your arguments about
it being "too easy" to dump a good moderator?

> If they were useable, then Dave Lawrence would have
> accepted the RFD to replace the rec.arts.erotica moderator.  

	Maybe he just thought they were unuseable, perhaps his mind has been
changed by all this waste of bandwidth?  But wasn't his objection that it had
never been done before, and he wasn't sure it was kosher?

> Since he didn't,
> it seems clear that you're just going to have to come up with something better
> and get him to sign off on it before you can replace the moderator of
> rec.arts.erotica or any other newsgroup.  I doubt Dave is going to change his
> mind.

	He has before.  But let's ask him!  What an idea.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky news.groups:16997 rec.motorcycles:28082 rec.motorcycles.racing:994 rec.motorcycles.dirt:1364 alt.motorcycles.harley:700