🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Corscadden writes:

>I'll vote against this group because there is nothing in the proposed
>charter that justifies eliminating discussion of QM interpretations or
>Mach's principle.

Does that mean that you'll vote for it if we put something in the
charter that justifies eliminating discussion of QM interpretations or
Mach's principle?  (I don't think so...)  Or are you - as I am - a bit
worried about the divergence between the charter and the moderator's
public statements about what they might accept or reject?  The charter
is still just a *proposed* charter and we are debating it.  I strongly
believe that the newsgroup should be run along the lines stated in the
charter that people vote on when a vote is finally taken.  I would
LIKE to reject boringly re-hashed arguments about Mach's principle and
QM interpretations, or at least have them suitably marked so people can
easily eliminate them via killfiles.  But the former, at least, is
something I could only feel decent about doing if it is in the charter
that people have voted for!  You are gright that if the charter
says "lightly moderated," I damn well better moderate lightly.
Similarly, some moderators (including me) have expressed a desire for
about 20 posts a day to be accepted.  But if this isn't in the charter
(or at least something like "the number of posts accepted will be kept
to a reasonable level, with the most interesting posts being accepted) I
don't see how I can rightly do this.

So - fellow proposed moderators, sci.physics fans, and countryfolk, let
us debate things, perhaps modify the proposed charter, vote on the
charter, and if it passes, do what the charter says.