Liste des Groupes |
In article <87ikodda8j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:>On 12/03/2025 22:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:>On 12/03/2025 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote:>D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?
[...]This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there>
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
>
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.
He's tooIf the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off. We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c. One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).
in that category.
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve asCount me in for 4½%. I think Tim would be willing, too.
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).
Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?
comp.lang.c does have a lot of off-topic traffic. I personally don't
think that reviving comp.lang.c.moderated would be a good solution to
that. My personal preference would be for clcmod to remain the way it
is: an inactive newsgroup whose old articles are still available on NNTP
servers with sufficiently long memories.
Surely most news servers that carried it have long-ago expired
all of the articles that they received that were posted to it.
>
There may be a handful with exceptionally long memories, but
would those honor an rmgroup for it, anyway?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.