On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:28:15 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:28:52 -0500, Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:

(...)
rec.aviation.announce Events of interest to the aviation community. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.answers Frequently asked questions about aviation. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.questions Aviation questions and answers. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.stories Anecdotes of flight experiences. (Moderated)
(...)
The options a

1. Find new moderators for each of the four groups.

2. Remove unwanted groups if they're really unwanted.
(...)

I'd opt for (2).
The above groups are not neccessary, IMHO.

I would use a test of utiltity or whether there is desire for a
particular newsgroup. think it may vary among the 4 groups.

If there are not actively maintained aviation FAQs, there is no point
to rec.aviation.answers. It's primary purpose would be to avoid
having the FAQ's posted across the rec.aviation.* hierarchy, where
many people would see them repetitively.

Widespread access to the world wide web may have supplanted the
utility of rec.aviation.announce. There may be a narrow niche for
"events of interest to the rec.aviation.* community"

I think rec.aviations.questions has an unworkable charter, and only
functioned for 3 months. I suppose you could have a group where
people posted questions, and people who wanted to could respond. But
doesn't that already happen in rec.aviation.*? It might take a lot of
effort to moderate.

I think rec.aviation.stories has the most potential. It was intended
to be low volume group, one that would require a little more effort on
the part of those posting, as well as those reading the articles.
Because it is low volume, it could be relatively easy to moderate. The
articles are unlikely to be particularly time sensitive such that
approvals need not be done in minutes or hours. Once a week may well
be sufficient.
--
Jim Riley