🚀 go-pugleaf

Even if someone does 'step forward', why don't we have a vote on the
moderator.  I realize that this isn't the 'way things are done' on the
net -- I've been told this often by many folks -- but it might be a nice
way 'to do things on the net.'  Folks always have agendas one way or the
other.  I think that anyone desiring to moderate comp.society should
explain 'why' they want to do it and what changes they see happening.  

I consider the net a very important form of communication and I'd like 
to see a precedent for 'netmocracy.'  I reject the 'we are anarchists'
argument.  Worst that can happen is that the discussion becomes
unmoderated.  Best that happens is that we develop a process which can
be used or not used elsewhere on the net.  Considering what has happened
on Prodigy and Genie, some precedent might be nice, and what better
group to do it?

>(*) Note: moderation is more than simply checking the articles on Usenet.  
>    There's also a popular digest version of the group -- The Computers & 
>    Society Digest -- that would have to either be carried along, disbanded, 
>    or otherwise dealt with...

Dave can you elaborate a little more on what you do.  How much time it 
takes?  What are the headaches?  How much experience does someone need? 

Thom Gillespie