Re: NOTICE: Draft RFD for retromoderation of sci.bio.paleontology
Colin Douthwaite (email@example.com)
25 Jul 1996 18:42:03 GMT
Chuck Karish (karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>Ben Waggoner <email@example.com> wrote:
>>I have posted a draft RFD (Request For Discussion) concerning proposed
>>retromoderation policy for sci.bio.paleontology. The RFD is available on
>>the Usenet newsgroups sci.bio.paleontology and news.groups; interested
>>persons are invited to comment.
>>Please note that news.groups is the proper forum for commenting on this
>>draft RFD. Please do not post comments or responses to the sci.*
>>newsgroups. Followups have been set accordingly.
>This is not the proper use of news.groups. It's perfectly appropriate
>to refine a draft RFD in the forum it will affect before submitting an
>actual RFD to news.groups.
>It's not productive to start discussions on news.groups until there is
>something approaching consensus in the interested constituency. The
>news managers who read news.groups don't know what the readers
>of sci.bio.paleontology want from the group.
Correct. The pre-RFD should be held in the affected newsgroup(s) in
an attempt at consensus from those readers most affected. It can save
a lot of aggro later at RFD time.
Retromoderation proposals seem to be flavour-of-the-month at present !