Hello, 
 I'm a news.groups regular.  Like most of the regulars here, I usually 
 don't vote on proposals.  However, I've got some comments and questions 
 for you (the proponent) which you might want to consider incorporating 
 your responses to in the next draft of your RFD ("2nd RFD:..."). 
  
 In news.groups Vito Kuhn  wrote: 
 >                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) 
 >              moderated group rec.woodworking.moderated 
  
 >Newsgroup line: 
 >rec.woodworking.moderated Woodworking discussion group for all ages. 
 (Moderated) 
  
 Most Big-8 newsgroups are understood to be discussion groups.  Remove 
 "discussion group" from your description, and if you want to you can 
 use the extra space to improve the description. 
  
 ... 
 >RATIONALE: rec.woodworking.moderated 
  
 The RATIONALE is partly for convincing readers interested in the 
 subject that the current conditions will improve if the new group 
 is created, particularly for those who haven't really thought 
 about the current conditions.  So it make sense to state the 
 problems that you hope the group solves. 
  
 >This group is proposed as a moderated global forum for the discussion 
 >of woodworking topics. The group is a moderated subgroup of 
 >rec.woodworking (The Wreck, as it is commonly referred to by 
 >subscribers), which is averaging more than 10,000 posts per month 
 >in 2004. 
  
 >Reasons for creating a moderated version of rec.woodworking: 
  
 >1-To ensure that woodworking remains the only topic of discussion 
  
 What is the problem this solves? 
  
 >2-To help divide the traffic of busy newsgroup that is very difficult 
 >to keep up with 
  
 Ok, this is going to catch some flak.  You aren't dividing it by 
 traditional lines, i.e. by sub-topics.  You are merely dividing it 
 by on-topic vs off-topic.  If the claim is that much of the traffic 
 is off-topic, then state so, and it wouldn't hurt to estimate how 
 much.  But more to the point, the implication is that you want to 
 draw all woodworking postings (ok, the ones without swearing) OUT 
 of the unmoderated group, leaving it simply full of OT postings. 
 What if everyone wants to crosspost woodworking postings to both 
 groups?  Or what if half the readers stay with the unmoderated group? 
 Sure the traffic is divided, but in a particularly bad way (half 
 the interesting posts won't be seen unless... everyone reads BOTH 
 groups, which in the case of groups with identical subjects, is 
 probably overly redundant). Those could blow away the notion that 
 the traffic will be divided.  I don't think it's realistic to aim 
 for dividing traffic in this situation: drop this and focus on the 
 other issues. 
  
 >3-To provide a family-safe environment to discuss woodworking topics, 
 >free of foul language and pornography links 
  
 >4-To offer woodworkers a higher signal to noise ratio than 
 >rec.woodworking provides 
  
 Estimates?  I mean, how bad is it? 
  
 >There are too many political debates, flaming wars, personal life 
 >story exchanges, personal insults, for-sale signs, Ebay links, and 
 >endless other forms of non-woodworking posts in rec.woodworking by 
 >many people's standards. This new moderated group will give woodworkers 
 >the option of subscribing to a group that is free of those problems. 
  
 Ah, now you start describing the problem.  Move this above the list. 
  
 >If you love The Wreck, but are tired of all the drivel, The Soft 
 >Wreck will soon be here! 
  
 Um, if you are trying to get support from fence sitters and prevent 
 opposition votes, don't you think this is unconstructive? 
  
 >CHARTER: rec.woodworking.moderated 
  
 >The purpose of the newsgroup is to facilitate open discussion of 
  
 Of what newsgroup? 
  
 >woodworking in a family-safe environment. This group is open to 
 >woodworking enthusiasts of all ages, genders, and nationalities. 
  
 Given that all nationalities are welcome, it might not hurt to 
 describe what "woodworking" is in a couple sentences, just in 
 case there is a cultural barrier somewhere with newcomers.  A 
 CHARTER should try to give some indication of the scope of the 
 subject, too.  Just because an unmoderated group exists, it 
 doesn't mean it always will.  Assume it doesn't exist and write 
 a CHARTER accordingly. 
  
 >Moderation Policy: This newsgroup is moderated the old fashioned 
 >way, by live human beings. 
  
 The above paragraph is about the only statement you've written that 
 is normally considered as "moderation policy".  The rest, below, is 
 normal CHARTER material.  So move the above to the end. 
  
 So, your team (I hope it's a team... more on that later) is going 
 to hand moderate all 300 posts per day?  Even those that come from 
 people that have a long track record of staying on topic?  Doesn't 
 that strike you as a waste of your time when the software you will 
 be using probably has a whitelist feature?  What about a black list, 
 how will you handle consistently badly behaving submitters?  Again, 
 software could make your life a lot easier (though, what rules will 
 you have for determining when they get black listed and for how 
 long?). 
  
 And speaking of software, what software will you be using?  Otherwise, 
 How will your team be accessing the submission queue?  Do you know 
 how to run a usenet moderated group, or do you have someone to teach 
 you how to do it at a low level (e.g. read the mail queue, add headers, 
 post, etc). 
  
 Do you already have a machine picked out?  Will at least one of 
 the moderators be allowed access to it to make changes to the moderation 
 configuration? 
  
 >The moderators of the group reserve the 
 >unconditional right to reject any post if it violates any part of 
 >the newsgroup charter. All rejections will be at the sole discretion 
 >of the moderators. 
  
 Will you be sending rejection notices?  If so, will they explain why 
 the submissions were rejected? 
  
 ... 
 >Commercial postings (advertisements and announcements) from for-profit 
 >entities are prohibited. 
  
 What about posts containing links to commercial entities in the 
 course of discussion (like what companies produce a certain kind 
 of tool), or posts from for-profit entities that answer a posted 
 question (with and without links to their products), e.g. HOWTO 
 that addresses a problem with a tool?  Will those be considered 
 "commercial postings"?  Most groups consider those acceptable. 
  
 >Posts containing notices or URL pointers 
 >to sale and auction items are prohibited, however non-profit 
 >organizations and individuals announcing meetings, workshops, or 
 >conventions may post notices. 
  
 I highly recommend a posting limit, like "no more than once a month". 
  
 ... 
 >END CHARTER. 
  
 >MODERATOR INFO: rec.woodworking.moderated 
  
 >Moderator: Susan Welchel  
 >Moderator: Vito Kuhn  
  
 You are going to hand moderate 300 submissions per day (at least 
 initially) with only two people?  24 hours per day (at any given 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)