> Thanks for the above. I have two questions though. 1) Are
> you willing to serve as discussion leader to get the newsgroup going,
> i.e., post frequently enough that usage doesn't drop to zero?
I find this interesting and I'm not sure I've ever heard a complete
answer. What is the origin of the perception that the biosci bboards
are in particular need of moderators? From an organizational standpoint,
this seems more important for groups like rec.humor.funny (a bboard of
jokes) where someone ultimately decides if a joke is WORTH telling and/or
if it has already been beaten to death. Since we are not trying to
restrict discussion, why is a moderator so vital.
This is not a complaint about Dave's efforts. I know him and think he is
not only good at his work but a genuinely terrific fellow (Hi, Dave. Long
time no chat!). One of the important activities of the "staff" seems to
be fielding suggestions, comments and complaints about GenBank (and
encouraging people to write to Washington when funding issues come up :)
but this is the kind of thing that the interested parties would do even
if the newsgroup was not officially "moderated."
Now I hope nobody will get territorial or defensive and jump down my
electronic throat on this, but are moderators a necessary resource ABOVE
AND BEYOND the resource of parties who are just interested in the topics
at hand?
Humbly submitted,
Hobart
_________________________________________
Howard Cash
cash at csmil.umich.edu
