🚀 go-pugleaf

In <22700@dhw68k.cts.com>, david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes:
> In article <471@ssbell.UUCP> kent@ssbell.UUCP (Systems Administrator) writes:
> >....
> >I don't have an answer to your question but I have sent mail to the 
> >moderator at least 5 times in the last 3 months.  No bounces, no answer.
> 
>.....
> If you have trouble reaching Roger, you may try sending inquiries as to
> the nature of the problem to me; if mail to this site seems to be
> ineffective, you may try calling my work telephone at (714) 385-4055.
> 
> However, if the problem is an issue of Roger's policies and procedures
> in moderating the newsgroups, there is no point in sending such
> inquiries my way -- that is properly Roger's concern.

	both Roger and David have kindly spoken up reassured us that there
	is no technical problem.  which leaves us with policies and
	procedures (unless we can find establish that there is a technical
	problem after all)

	moderating an active group and dealing with all the administrative
	email-traffic is no little task, and I am certain that Roger often
	feels like "punting" a couple of days mail ... (hmm, maybe he does
	sometimes?!  Good for you, Roger! :-)  However, I am one of the first
	who would like to see certain procedural techniques used that would
	make the group a more effective and pleasant communication tool.

	ONE item I had been "preaching" for years is to ACKnowlege
	all incoming mail - no more than an "ACK receipt", at least.
	Roger does not do that and I find that most annoying, enough so
	that I'd want to see that defined as a task the group expects of
	their chosen moderator.  Of course, there is still always a chance
	that an ACK gets lost every once in a while, but read on ...

	SECOND, I believe it would be very desirable to broadcast all articles
	with a built-in "sanity check" ...mainly a  sequence number in the
	Subject header, which would allow all readers to notice when
	something is missing.

	THIRD, it would be most wise and effective to post, regularly,
	the list of items in "the queue" waiting to be posted.

	LAST, I ask of my moderators of choice that they keep the
	group informed of any articles which get rejected or sent
	back to the authors with a request for a modification. 

To avoid any confusion, Roger did not take on the moderator job with these
or any other agreed on "guidelines", and I even think that this task may be
too much for one person to handle with any consistency (and when Roger
requested relief from his post a year ago, I told him when he asked me if
I would take the job that I feel unable to commit the required time, but 
that I would like to see a cooperative of about 5 people, with, at least 
one in each participating continent, and that I'd consider being part of 
such a group;  I never heard back from Roger regarding this suggestion,
as a matter of fact, he had announced his "resignation" and I must have
missed the announcement that he was "rethinking the matter" (if there ever
was one) ...

With that said, recent concern about the topic gives me the feeling that
another effort to add some "additional value" to the Macintosh-groups
may be in order, especially as it seems to be true that people who have
time to post observations, suggestions, and complaints often can be
recruited to contribute some volunteer labour to the task at hand.

But before going any further, I'd like to ask for a "show of hands"
(send email to "werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu") from people who think
that this is even a topic worth discussing (I'm not asking for any
volunteers for anything;  I just want to find out if this article was
a worthwhile investment of my time or not ...)