🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <49i1kn$29sq@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Luc Bauwens <bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>Those of you who have been following this will remember that I was
>the guy guilty of suggesting this in the first place :-).

Kill!  Kill! ;-)

>Anyway, it looks like we are still nowhere near a consensus.  And
>can.infohighway currently looks somewhat better, after the worst
>source of junk has apparently been dealt with.

>So, maybe we should ask ourselves whether we are really ready
>to move on this?

>So, why don't we see whether until then, we do reach some agreement.
>And if we don't then let's let the matter rest, with the newsgroup
>unmoderated, until we get another chance?

>What do you guys think?

I was thinking the same thing myself.

Luc, how about we let this sit, without discussion, til January, and
judge for yourself whether it's still necessary.  If you still think it
is, dust off the proposal and we'll finish it.

We did come to a consensus that a moderated group was desirable.
I think most of us will agree that at current sillyness level, it's
still desirable.  So, unless it gets better still, we don't have
to do this part of the process again.

The sticking point is whether it's making can.infohighway moderated,
or creating a new can.infohighway.<something>.  I think, after a
cool-off period with no discussions, unsticking it will be easy.