chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/14/91)
So what's going to spur more articles _this_ time?
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
"I want to mention that my opinions whether real or not are MY opinions."
-- the inevitable William "Billy" Steinmetztneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (02/14/91)
In article <27B97DD1.63A0@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >So what's going to spur more articles _this_ time? Round-the-clock bombing?
alan@uh.msc.umn.edu (Alan Klietz) (02/19/91)
In article <80524101@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: <In article <27B97DD1.63A0@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: <>So what's going to spur more articles _this_ time? < <Round-the-clock bombing? Try sanctions first.
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/21/91)
According to alan@msc.edu (Alan Klietz): >In article <80524101@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: ><In article <27B97DD1.63A0@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: ><>So what's going to spur more articles _this_ time? >< ><Round-the-clock bombing? > >Try sanctions first. Some people understand only force.
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (02/21/91)
In article <27C31119.5866@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to alan@msc.edu (Alan Klietz): >>In article <80524101@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >><In article <27B97DD1.63A0@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >><>So what's going to spur more articles _this_ time? >>< >><Round-the-clock bombing? >> >>Try sanctions first. > >Some people understand only force. I note with amusement that we appear to have dislodged the snowmass once again... could this discussion be placed in a few peoples' crons? :-) -- A doubled signature is the devil's work. ** Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM> -- A doubled signature is the devil's work. ** Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) (02/22/91)
In article <3520@uc.msc.umn.edu>, alan@uh.msc.umn.edu (Alan Klietz) writes: > In article <80524101@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > <In article <27B97DD1.63A0@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > <>So what's going to spur more articles _this_ time? > < > <Round-the-clock bombing? > > Try sanctions first. A VERY serious suggestion: Let's try diplomacy. First, I think it may not be good to pressure the release of new software. As has been discussed before, this leads to the release of "software before its time". I'd much rather see just 5 new programs per year that work than 50 programs per year, of which only 5 work. I'd rather see no programs at all than a program that won't compile on my machine without days (err, I mean "nights") of hacking. OK, so here is a suggestion. During periods of quiet, why not release intermediate versions of programs. I am tired of seeing Patch Level #50 posts to software I don't have (but want) Patch Level #0 of. Many, including myself, do not have inexpensive (or free) access to an archive site. I would very much like to get the full source for ELM, for example, at a recent patch level. Considering the low volume that has been going through comp.sources.unix, I don't think anyone can reasonably complain of it taking too much net bandwidth. (I am new to comp.sources.unix, so I hope this doesn't sound too stupid.) So what say? Jay Ts uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay
lmb@sat.com (Larry Blair) (02/23/91)
I would just like to point out that, once again, a complaint about c.s.u has
resulted in a small dribble to the group. Does Rich keep a package in reserve
for each complaint?
Whatever happened to the comp.sources.refereed idea?
--
Larry Blair lmb@sat.com {apple,decwrl}!sat!lmbbob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (02/23/91)
In article <376@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
Many, including myself, do not have inexpensive (or free) access to
an archive site.
Uunet accounts are pretty inexpensive, and with their new connectivity
to Compu$erve's 9600 baud dialups, you can get fast local access in a
*lot* of places. If you don't want to spring for an account of your
own, use their 900 numbers and pay as you go. And there are lots of
anonymous UUCP archives out there that don't charge for connect time
at all, so you'll just pay Ma for the telephone time. I don't know
how you hope to find anything less expensive than the cost of the
physical connection!andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb22.204139.15552@sat.com> lmb@sat.com (Larry Blair) writes: >I would just like to point out that, once again, a complaint about c.s.u has >resulted in a small dribble to the group. Does Rich keep a package in reserve >for each complaint? > >Whatever happened to the comp.sources.refereed idea? A Call for Discussion was posted to this and other relevant groups (including news.announce.newgroups) back at the beginning of February. There has been VERY little response, and I was about to let the idea drop. It will live if you want it to, but I am looking for a little interest out there before I post a Call for Votes (scheduled for today). -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA andrew@calvin.doc.CA "The interface IS the program."
karsten@tfl.dk (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb24.035428.10981@rick.doc.ca>, andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: > In article <1991Feb22.204139.15552@sat.com> lmb@sat.com (Larry Blair) writes: >>I would just like to point out that, once again, a complaint about c.s.u has >>resulted in a small dribble to the group. Does Rich keep a package in reserve >>for each complaint? >> >>Whatever happened to the comp.sources.refereed idea? > > A Call for Discussion was posted to this and other relevant groups > (including news.announce.newgroups) back at the beginning of February. > > There has been VERY little response, and I was about to let the idea > drop. It will live if you want it to, but I am looking for a little > interest out there before I post a Call for Votes (scheduled for > today). > > > -- > Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA > andrew@calvin.doc.CA > "The interface IS the program." > oda Yes. It's right that there has been very little response - I have only seen two followups in news.groups. This can have four reasons: 1) People don't care about the *.sources.* groups. Then the proposal will fall. The vivid discussions about comp.sources.unix and R$ proves that wrong. 2) The the proposal was so well prepared that noboby thought it was worth answering - not that likely. If people cared somebody would post Yeh let's get it postings. 3) Bad experiences with moderated comp.sources.* groups. 4) Few noticed the CFD. The little dicussion in news.groups has made many forget Your CFD. Personally I think it is a compination of 2), 3) and 4). I think the reason for the many bad experiences with comp.sources groups is that there is more work connected to being moderator of such a group than one voluntary can do. The only solution to that is to try something like comp.sources.reviewed. The little interest in discussing c.s.r could be because the discussion never really got started. Therefore nobody was tempted to post the rather boring posting giving thumbs up or down. An other reason could be that people have been discussing comp.sources.* so much that everybody are tired. I think that for these reasons, the only way to find out whether people want comp.sources.reviwed is a vote. Karsten Nyblad TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory E-mail: karsten@tfl.dk
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/25/91)
karsten@tfl.dk writes: | 1) People don't care about the *.sources.* groups. Then the proposal | will fall. The vivid discussions about comp.sources.unix and | R$ proves that wrong. | ... I think the answer is #99: The comp.sources.* groups are the PROPER places to post sources. The answer is not to create new newsgroups. I have a world of respect for the moderators, but if they don't have enough time to keep up with submissions, then we should get new moderators. There are thousands and thousands of people to benefit by timely postings. It's silly not to replace them or for them not to pass on that moderatorship if they just don't have the time. Sean -- ** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu>
karsten@tfl.dk (02/25/91)
In article <sean.667415034@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > karsten@tfl.dk writes: > > | 1) People don't care about the *.sources.* groups. Then the proposal > | will fall. The vivid discussions about comp.sources.unix and > | R$ proves that wrong. > | ... > > I think the answer is #99: The comp.sources.* groups are the PROPER > places to post sources. The answer is not to create new newsgroups. > > I have a world of respect for the moderators, So have I. > but if they don't have > enough time to keep up with submissions, then we should get new > moderators. There are thousands and thousands of people to benefit by > timely postings. It's silly not to replace them or for them not to > pass on that moderatorship if they just don't have the time. At current one moderator names the next. If a moderator fails to do is job, then people complain and nothing happens. comp.sources.misc was idle for months because the previous moderator did not name a new. The current system neither ensures that the best moderator is selected, nor that a slack moderator is replaced. I think the job of moderating comp.sources.unix is so big that you can't expect a continuous flow of software, and that replacing R$ will just mean that a new moderator must take all the flames. I think it is time for trying to expand the capacity of the comp.sources groups, and that is what the proposal about comp.sources.reviewed is about. It is not about substituting any of the moderators for the comp.sources.* groups for two reasons: 1) The way comp.sources.reviewed is proposed to be moderated has not been tested. It might fail and in that case the old comp.sources.* should still exist. 2) These groups have proven valuable and viable. Why removing something valuable and viable? Karsten Nyblad TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory E-mail: karsten@tfl.dk