On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:13:39 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:32:29 GMT, Jim Riley
wrote in . net:

[rec.aviation.piloting added to cross-post. It was mispelled, so that
the message I am responding to did not show up in that group]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:49:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

I would like to see rec.aviation.stories changed to unmoderated.

I think it would be likely that people would include the group in
cross-posts to other groups, or that followup discussion would also be
posted into the newsgroup, obscuring the longer articles the group was
intended to feature.

When the group was originally proposed, the rationale for moderation
was:

A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of the
net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups. A moderated
newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will allow a final
formatting check to be done to ensure that the articles are easy
to read (line lengths, etc.).

The group was expected to be relatively low volume (perhaps one or 2
articles per week) so that it could easily be hand moderated.

So, given the rationale for moderation cited above, and the desire to
see stories actually published in the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup,
what is the appropriate procedure for establishing a new moderator so
that the newsgroup can become functional again?

Bring it to the attention of the Big-8 Management Board



It is somewhat unlikely(*) that they will actually find a new
moderator. They can publicize that there is an apparent vacancy, and
assign a new moderator if a volunteer steps forward.

(*) In the past, Brian Edmonds, who is a board member, has identified
a number of newsgroups that had missing moderators, and revived them
(not successful in all cases). The board has also recently begun
robomoderating soc.religion.hindu, with so far rather desultory
results. For moderation to really be successful, it may be that the
moderator needs to have an active interest in the topic of his group.

And in the future, if
a moderator should disappear, what is the proper procedure for
installing a replacement to assume that role?

Bring it to the attention of the Big-8 Management Board



It would also make sense to bring it up in other unmoderated
newsgroups and news.groups. It would help if there are other people
who are interested in the newsgroup. One advantage that the Big 8
Management Board has is that they may post a notice to the moderated
newsgroup (ordinary folks might be able to do this if they know how,
but it is somewhat frowned on).

In the past, there really wasn't much that could be done. Moderated
newsgroups have generally been considered to be "owned" by their
moderator. They could gift their group to a new moderator who would
then own it. They can request that their group be removed. In some
cases, this has been refused - and the moderators have simply walked
away.

Because of the sense that a moderator owns their group, there has been
an absolute refusal to get involved in actively changing moderators.
This is a reasonable policy. In some cases, the moderator may have
good intentions to restart moderation - but fail to acquire the round
tuits necessary to do so.

I have been proposing removal of the longest-abandoned newsgroups. I
an currently up to groups that last had approvals in 1997. I would
eventually like to get up to perhaps 2 years of inactivity. In
general, that is probably too long for a revival to be notably
successful. But at least it should get to the point where it is
considered abnormal for a moderated group to not have a moderator.
--
Jim Riley