Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.panix6.panix.com!nan.users.panix.com!robomod!not-for-mail
From: pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck)
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals,news.groups
Subject: Re: MODERATOR (NOT MODERATORS?) FOUND for rec.photo.moderated, comp.std.announce, comp.newprod, and comp.simulation
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:14:55 EDT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Approved: NGP Approval Key <ngp-approval-key@ngp.big-8.org>
Message-ID: <102ifv6$14a$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <MPG.42b54d916dd18e09896f4@news.eternal-september.org> <MPG.42b54e792ebe45e59896f5@news.eternal-september.org> <MPG.42b54ff3bf9863519896f7@news.eternal-september.org> <MPG.42b54f6af1452af69896f6@news.eternal-september.org>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix6.panix.com:166.84.1.6";
	logging-data="16177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3
X-NGP-Policy: http://www.big-8.org/~ngp
X-NGP-Info-1: Send submissions to              ngp@nan.users.panix.com
X-NGP-Info-2: Send technical/policy queries to ngp-admin@nan.users.panix.com
X-Comment: Moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article.
X-Robomod: STUMP <https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/stump>
X-Spam-Relay-Country: DE US US
X-Spam-DCC: : 
Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; dkim=pass (Good 1024 bit 
   rsa-sha256 signature) header.d=panix.com header.a=rsa-sha256
Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=panix.com
Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=panix.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=panix.com; s=panix;
	t=1749861158; bh=z3fJBh/RlfSLUSXDPiUSKC1vK+bY865KhaSN7aUXCj8=;
	h=To:From:Subject:Date:References;
	b=OOe64benqDE8llBKEFamGh0VFdd8PFqlPm9kv8Z6S+HQEVf3nQ1GyqUcdLpgWvB35
	 3pJmYpRiAEAPZonayGlOa4IQVzE04iw6mwY/L1IT50KFODKm2PvPBODcLYwQinK4Z4
	 0A3lU4e77sLS2aEOrqNMG9TPdKm/+PrfGSs2NuPo=
X-Auth: PGPMoose V2.0 PGP news.groups.proposals
 iEYEARECAAYFAmhMzQ8ACgkQrPkQbuk9hdtsWwCeP1xKj4DurbC35HMevavKb/6n
 gH8AoNcCTJyQoQYBPjLXD7yWILyuYDEo
 =01bp

In <MPG.42b54d916dd18e09896f4@news.eternal-september.org> Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:

>REPLACEMENT MODERATOR FOUND
>rec.photo.moderated


>The Big-8 Management Board is pleased to announce that Ivan Shmakov has
>volunteered to take on moderation duties for rec.photo.moderated.


In <MPG.42b54e792ebe45e59896f5@news.eternal-september.org> Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:


>REPLACEMENT MODERATOR FOUND
>comp.std.announce


>The Big-8 Management Board is pleased to announce that Ivan Shmakov has
>volunteered to take on moderation duties for comp.std.announce.


In <MPG.42b54ff3bf9863519896f7@news.eternal-september.org> Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:


>REPLACEMENT MODERATOR FOUND
>comp.newprod


>The Big-8 Management Board is pleased to announce that Ivan Shmakov has
>volunteered to take on moderation duties for comp.newprod.


In <MPG.42b54f6af1452af69896f6@news.eternal-september.org> Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:


>REPLACEMENT MODERATOR FOUND
>comp.simulation


>The Big-8 Management Board is pleased to announce that Ivan Shmakov has
>volunteered to take on moderation duties for comp.simulation.


OK, so a single moderator for each newsgroup, and the same moderator
for all of these newsgroups?  I don't doubt Ivan's sincerity, good
intentions, and likely technical skills, but I thought that this was the
kind of risky moderation model that we were trying to get away from
during past Moderator Vacancy Investigations.

There may also be some lessons-learned from the analogous experiences of
Brian Edmonds in the aughts and tens (2000's and 2010's), for example.
He identified many inactive newsgroups, offered to moderate them, set up
moderation services, and offered these services to other newsgroups
(Robomod).  Some newsgroups prospered, some didn't, and when he left
Usenet, all of these newsgroups managed with his now inactive services
were left high and dry.  Some transferred to other moderation services,
some went dormant.  In the archives is some discussion over the years,
including expression of concerns about the future, whether Brian was
either biting off more than he could chew or assuming too much power
over large numbers of newsgroups, and which mostly predicted the
eventual outcome.

For newsgroup viability and longevity, should we be making an effort to
find multiple, independent, moderation teams and services across
newsgroups, ensure constituencies to populate those newsgroups with
participation, and develop contingency plans in advance should those
moderators need to be replaced?  Is four moderated newsgroups enough for
one moderator (Ian) and should we try to recruit others?

--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com