Bob Schmall  wrote: 
  
  
 >I vote yes, but I wouldn't join such a group. 
  
 Just so you know, the time to vote is when a "CFV" or "Call for Votes" 
 is posted (it contains the ballot). 
  
 >Like it or not, there are a 
 >number of woodworker who don't care for the content of many posts. If they 
 >are of such a mind, the new group is for them, and I'll bet others would 
 >join out of curiosity. Although I'm not one of them, I say why not? They are 
 >perfectly entitled to establish a newsgroup. 
  
 Ultimately, that's what matters the most, if there are enough people 
 that want to read the group (it doesn't matter if there are folks 
 that don't want to read the group).  If they feel they need a place 
 with less off-topic postings, they are welcome to try to create that 
 kind of place (particularly by voting for it). 
  
 However, consider if either the move away from RW of readers (and 
 posters) and postings will hurt RW.  If RW is more about chat than 
 woodworking, the I'd imagine not.  If there are folks that are 
 serious about woodworking and want it in an unmoderated group 
 (e.g. they don't like moderation), then that could be an opposing 
 factor.  I'd imagine that most of the readers of serious woodworking 
 messages won't mind the moderated group, though, at least in 
 principle. 
  
 My concern is if the moderators really can do the job.  For supporters 
 of the idea, that should be a big concern.  Moderators can do whatever 
 they want to a group because they control the moderation site and 
 software.  Those moderators must be considered trustworthy and 
 sufficiently competent by the readers.  Otherwise, the proposed group 
 is doomed to failure. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)