🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <48tgff$9hq@news.nstn.ca>, Ian Angus  <ianangus@angustel.ca> wrote:
>
>It now seems to me that there is a consensus:
>
>1. can.infohighway should be noderated.
>
>2. It would be preferable not to change the group's name.
>
>Point 2 was disputed several days ago, but all messages which
>followed seemed to agree with my objection to a name change.
>And since then, there have been no new messages at all. 
>
>Could some excellent sysadmin please now volunteer to take us on
>to the next step?

Dave Blackwood has said he would issue a newgroup for
can.infohighway.moderated because he thought that there was consensus
on that.  I pointed out that I thought he was (a) wrong, and (b)
premature.

I agree, there does now seem to be a reasonable consensus on
moderating can.infohighway.  And I think if I issued the change
group, other admins would actually respect it.  Further, because
of the confusion with can.infobahn, I'd also like to issue newgroups
of can.infobahn to reinforce it.

But I won't do anything until I hear from Dave, lest, like with the
can.infobahn/can.infohighway debacle, we dig ourselves even further
into a big hole.

Dave?  Hello?