lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) (11/27/90)
Well, it's happened again. Less than 2 days after I called for someone to replace Rich Salz, he dribbled out a little more software. I'M SICK OF IT! Alright! You want to play that way? I'm going to start posting a call for Rich's replacement weekly. Even if no one steps forward, at least we'll get something out of c.s.u. Let's get real here, huh? -- Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.com
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (11/28/90)
Larry, if you're so fed up with Rich Salz, instead of bothering us on a weekly basis, why don't YOU volunteer to replace him? Better yet, why don't you offer him a job to maintain the group? Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing my USENIX dollars spent in this area... -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (11/28/90)
lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: |Alright! You want to play that way? I'm going to start posting a call for |Rich's replacement weekly. Even if no one steps forward, at least we'll |get something out of c.s.u. perhaps a more definite course of action could be suggested. since lmb appears to be the most vocal detractor of the current state of affairs he could: 1) contact the net management (woods, lear, spafford, the moderators, uunet) and see what they think would be a resonable plan of action and then discuss this in news.admin. 2) bring it up at the next usenet bof (in jan.) or nntp-managers or both. 3) simply call for a new group. the above alternatives are simply unordered suggestions that might lead to some definite progress. i do think c.s.u could stand some improvement but i'm not yet ready to characterize rich as malfeasant. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) (11/28/90)
I'm getting sick of all the people trashing Rich Salz here. comp.sources.unix has consistently produced the best software of any of the sources groups. This is primarily due to Rich. He takes a lot of care in moderating the group. Admittedly, the delays have been getting longer than they probably should but these attacks are getting undeservedly vicious. It kind of reminds me of when I worked as a dishwasher at Disneyland. We washed pots by hand. I got the pots clean but I got in trouble because I didn't do it quickly enough. My lead (read: foreman) showed me how to do it *right*: he didn't get the pots clean. He just sprayed them off with the high pressure sprayer and put them on the shelf and announced: "we're done". They still had crud all over them. In fact, that was the way he and all the other dishwashers did it all the time. If I didn't do it that way I got yelled at. I'm glad I managed to change to busboy after two weeks. I have a problem with doing a job halfway. Larry, if you can do just as good a job of choosing and testing software had Rich has and do it more quickly then I suggest that you offer to take over the job of moderator. Otherwise, quit whining. It's getting tedious and boring. --Bill Davidson "My God! I'm living in a Stephen King movie!" -- Murphy Brown
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov27.075737.16836@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: >Well, it's happened again. Less than 2 days after I called for someone to >replace Rich Salz, he dribbled out a little more software. I'M SICK OF IT! Larry's sure right about that, I think there's something at bbn.com that tickles something at uunet.uu.net that lets something else struggle out of the barrier from Sha-Ka-Ree. Heck Larry, calm down, you're performing a useful service. Around Pipe Creek Texas you have the reputation of being the cybernetic laxative. You bitch, c.s.u evacuates. I like it! You got cron on that system? :-) >Alright! You want to play that way? I'm going to start posting a call for >Rich's replacement weekly. Even if no one steps forward, at least we'll >get something out of c.s.u. Naw, don't do it weekly, let's get together on a really creative crontab entry. Let's _all_ pitch in and keep Rich running for cover, Larry's stuff works! By golly, when he twists Rich's tail, some stuff does indeed cough loose. Please don't get angry Larry, you're the one who makes it work. I must also confess that I don't agree with a call for R$ replacement, but I don't mind a bit supporing Larry's efforts to coax pearls out of that oyster. Let's keep Rich and let's keep Larry Blair, they work together to the collective benefit of the net. There's an absence of smileys, intentional; there's also no sarcasm implied or intended. We've found out how to make the system work, let's use it. >Let's get real here, huh? >-- >Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.com I hope that no one feels upset by my remarks, I mean them as written. It's a near perfect Newtonian phenomenon. Larry bitches, Rich delivers. Works for me! Seriously Larry, you're doing good for the rest of us. When you're ready to level your sights on Rich, point 'em this way and blaze away. When you're cooled off enough to twist his tail, do that too. When you do that we all benefit. Once again for anyone who has forgotten, I'm _not_ being sarcastic. Hasn't every one of us accepted a fix that just didn't seem perfect? -- Bill Kennedy usenet {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
gmp@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov27.075737.16836@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: > Well, it's happened again. Less than 2 days after I called for someone to > replace Rich Salz, he dribbled out a little more software. I'M SICK OF IT! The funny thing is that Rich promised some several months ago that if the newsgroup suffered another dry spell, he'd resign. I'd say it's been suffering one hell of a dry spell and it's time for Rich to admit that he can't do the job and resign as promised. (Rich, no need to wait for the net to elect a new moderator; nobody's going to notice any difference when you resign -- as long as the moderator's address is changed to /dev/null. :-( ) The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders. The newsgroup has been next to worthless for well more than a year now. How can they defend the job he's been doing? One may like the guy personally, fine, but please recognize that he's been doing nothing, effectively, for comp.sources.unix for a long time. -- Greg Paris <gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com> {uiucdcs,uunet}!rayssd!gmp
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/29/90)
In article <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes: >The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders. The >newsgroup has been next to worthless for well more than a year now. >How can they defend the job he's been doing? One may like the guy >personally, fine, but please recognize that he's been doing nothing, >effectively, for comp.sources.unix for a long time. They defend in reaction to attack. USENET doesn't work the way it is implied that you think it does. People who work to build usenet do things, but they have no duty to do so. To *not* do something is not a negative thing. So complaints that "these damn volunteers aren't working as hard as I think they should for me" are not always taken well. People want to hear constructive comments about what you are going to *do* about something, not what you don't like about it. (Of course, that has never stopped people from yammering away about what they don't like :-)) If you can't *do*, we may not be so keen on having you teach. That's the way USENET works. Those who put their time and effort and resources into doing things are the people who make and control the network. If you are not willing to put those things in, you get no say. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) (11/29/90)
In article <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes: >The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders. The >newsgroup has been next to worthless for well more than a year now. >How can they defend the job he's been doing? One may like the guy >personally, fine, but please recognize that he's been doing nothing, >effectively, for comp.sources.unix for a long time. I assume you mean people like me. In the last year he's posted about 40-50 software packages accounting for about 7 megabytes of compressed archives (based upon a du of my archive directories). Many of these packages are extremely useful (perl, nn gawk, sc, flex, vixie-cron, and others). I wouldn't call that next to worthless. I admit that it would be nice if things could be sped up but I'm not terribly worried. I don't need to get a fix on new sources every week. I have real work to do and usenet itself is enough of a distraction as it is. --Bill Davidson
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (11/29/90)
In article <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes: >The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders. The >newsgroup has been next to worthless for well more than a year now. >How can they defend the job he's been doing? Their arguments, if I understand them correctly, are twofold: (1) c.s.u may not pass much, but what it does pass is of the highest quality and rigorously tested, which makes the group valuable as is; and (2) detractors don't always seem to understand that moderating is hard work. I guess the question is whether there's really so little high-quality software being released that c.s.u's meager flow is sufficient. Moderating certainly IS hard work -- the kind that engenders burnout. There's nothing dishonorable about that, but for the good of the net it's important to recognize when it happens. Let's put it this way: how would we know if the c.s.u. moderator WAS burned out? What would it look like, and how would that be different from what we have now? I would not want to pass the duty to someone less capable than Rich, nor would I want to piss him off to where he wouldn't consider doing it again in a couple of years. But is there no way to settle on an amicable rotation?
rabe@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov28.214659.26551@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes: >>The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders. > >They defend in reaction to attack. USENET doesn't work the way it is >implied that you think it does. People who work to build usenet do things, >but they have no duty to do so. To *not* do something is not a negative >thing. So complaints that "these damn volunteers aren't working as hard >as I think they should for me" are not always taken well. Brad, where do you get this crap? To *not* fulfill ANY position of responsibility, regardless of its status as "volunteer" or "paid" or whatever, certainly IS negative, especially when it is leading to as much frustration as c.s.u has recently. ESPECIALLY when there are people out there that are happy to take over the moderator position. I don't know R $alz. I don't dislike him. But I have heard story after story from people who don't get even so much as a 1 line note from him when they submit something letting them know that he got it. He apparently doesn't even have the courtesy to say "I got your submission, I'm buried over my neck in work right now, I'll look at it sometime in the future." Apparently, he just doesn't even give people that much, which sure as hell wouldn't take a lot of time out of his work day. > >If you can't *do*, we may not be so keen on having you teach. I can't take the job of moderator. I don't have the competency needed to test the various programs and make sure that they are reliable enough to be released. That is at least one thing that I can respect in $alz. But, from what I have been reading, there are at least a few people out there who are qualified who are willing to do the job. Why not let them? If they intend to increase the flow of the newsgroup, and they're competent, and Rich $alz is really so overworked that he just can't moderate the group, what's the hassle? >-- >Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 bmr -- brett michael rabe: Phone-> 507/645-9387 Snailmail: Brett M. Rabe rabe@{cs, math, acc}.stolaf.edu 100 N. Lincoln brabe@carleton.edu brett@dagon.acc.stolaf.edu Northfield, MN 55057 USA
chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.172427.11437@acc.stolaf.edu> rabe@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) writes: >Brad, where do you get this crap? To *not* fulfill ANY position of >responsibility, regardless of its status as "volunteer" or "paid" or >whatever, certainly IS negative, especially when it is leading to >as much frustration as c.s.u has recently. ESPECIALLY when there are >people out there that are happy to take over the moderator position. Where are they? Comp.sources.misc has had an opening for a new moderator for a month now. I haven't seen this flood of qualified volunteers taking that over. Seems like people are quick to bitch, but not so quick to help out. Big surprise, eh? >I don't know R $alz. I don't dislike him. But I have heard story >after story from people who don't get even so much as a 1 line note >from him when they submit something letting them know that he got >it. He apparently doesn't even have the courtesy to say "I got >your submission, I'm buried over my neck in work right now, I'll >look at it sometime in the future." Apparently, he just doesn't >even give people that much, which sure as hell wouldn't take a lot >of time out of his work day. Really. Do you know how many submissions that he gets? Or how long it takes to get one ready for comp.sources.unix? I routinely see submissions that have had major pieces rewritten by Rich. All this and a regular work-day too. And people sending him mail regarding this or that. "Could you send me pieces 1,4,9,10,11 (except for foo.h) of big-release-2.0?" I'm amazed that he has time to sleep, much less answer mail. >I can't take the job of moderator. I don't have the competency >needed to test the various programs and make sure that they are >reliable enough to be released. That is at least one thing that >I can respect in $alz. But, from what I have been reading, there >are at least a few people out there who are qualified who are >willing to do the job. Why not let them? If they intend to >increase the flow of the newsgroup, and they're competent, and >Rich $alz is really so overworked that he just can't moderate >the group, what's the hassle? Where are they? You can't do it, I can't do it, Joe Blow can't do it. But we can sure bitch about it! I've yet to see anybody *seriously* say that they were willing to help out who had the time, skills, and resources to do so. I'm sure that Rich would appreciate anybody who did. Jeez, people, get off his back. Chris -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Chris Anderson, QMA, Inc. utgard!chris@csusac.csus.edu | | My employer doesn't listen to me... why should you? | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov28.214659.26551@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes: <>The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders. The <>newsgroup has been next to worthless for well more than a year now. <>How can they defend the job he's been doing? One may like the guy <>personally, fine, but please recognize that he's been doing nothing, <>effectively, for comp.sources.unix for a long time. < <They defend in reaction to attack. USENET doesn't work the way it is <implied that you think it does. People who work to build usenet do things, <but they have no duty to do so. To *not* do something is not a negative <thing. So complaints that "these damn volunteers aren't working as hard <as I think they should for me" are not always taken well. Oh, come *on*! Sitting on sources for a week is one thing; sitting on sources for a year is quite another. I'm sure Rich is a nice guy, and he did a good job when he was moderating the group, but he effectively no longer moderates it. He's just holding up the exchange of sources. I'm unpleasantly surprised at his selfishness. He won't post anything until someone asks for another moderator, whereupon he posts a couple of sources just so that he can justify holding the reins. <People want to hear constructive comments about what you are going to *do* <about something, not what you don't like about it. Constructive comments? How about this one: Get a new moderator. Hell, even removing moderation altogether would be better than letting Rich guarantee that nothing gets posted to `comp.sources.unix': Sure, a lot of net.trash would be posted, but at least some sources could get out. (_N.B._: I'm not suggesting that `comp.sources.unix' be made unmoderated, so don't waste your time and mine with silly flames.) <If you can't *do*, we may not be so keen on having you teach. If you can't *do*, we may not be so keen on having you prevent others from doing. This isn't your network; it belongs to all of us. Others can do; let them. >That's the <way USENET works. Those who put their time and effort and resources into <doing things are the people who make and control the network. If you are <not willing to put those things in, you get no say. Oh, and what "say" do those who are willing to put in sources get? Rich Salz is here for the net; the net isn't here for Rich Salz. --Scott -- Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.
johnan@mchale.ism.isc.com (John Antypas) (12/01/90)
While Rich may be unable to handle the archives, it should be noted that Rich does not, in fact, earn his living from this. USENET is a cooperative net. Perhaps we could achived the on-demand response people want if we starting earning some cash from it -- say by charging by the packet like CSNet or with hook-up costs like Internet. In short, you get what you pay for. If Rich is unable to do this for us, he's most likely simply got too much WORK to do. If we don't like it, perhaps we could either: - Come up with a way to hire Rich full time to do this job - Come up with a way to lesten the load on Rich *AND* other future moderators. USENET, despite what some people think, is not free, and the costs are not those of a call to UUNet et al. John Antypas / Interactive Systems Corp. .!uunet!ism!johnan johnan@ism.isc.com All statements belong to author. "Help! I've crashed -- and I can't reboot!!" -- oracle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
vandys@sequent.uucp (Andrew Valencia) (12/01/90)
chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) writes: >Where are they? Comp.sources.misc has had an opening for a new >moderator for a month now. I haven't seen this flood of qualified >volunteers taking that over. Seems like people are quick to bitch, >but not so quick to help out. Big surprise, eh? I'm a little confused. I immediately sent mail offering my services. I received mail back indicating that 16-odd people had applied for the job. Since I wasn't hot on some sort of competition (I just wanted to see the job continue to be done), I offered to withdraw. That's the last I heard. If all 16 people pulled out, you know where to find me :-). Otherwise, I expect the bottleneck lies elsewhere. Maybe it's not so easy handing off moderator's job.... Just my opinions, Andy Valencia vandys@sequent.com
scott@wiley.uucp (Scott Simpson) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov28.214659.26551@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> gmp@quahog.ssd.ray.com (Greg Paris) writes: >>The people I don't understand are the Rabid Salz Defenders. The >>newsgroup has been next to worthless for well more than a year now. >>How can they defend the job he's been doing? One may like the guy >>personally, fine, but please recognize that he's been doing nothing, >>effectively, for comp.sources.unix for a long time. > >They defend in reaction to attack. USENET doesn't work the way it is >implied that you think it does. People who work to build usenet do things, >but they have no duty to do so. To *not* do something is not a negative >thing. So complaints that "these damn volunteers aren't working as hard >as I think they should for me" are not always taken well. > >People want to hear constructive comments about what you are going to *do* >about something, not what you don't like about it. (Of course, that has >never stopped people from yammering away about what they don't like :-)) What a bunch of crap. If you take over a moderatorship and you don't live up to your time commitments then you have gone back on your word. There are people who do have the time to moderate comp.sources.unix and who have volunteered and I and many others in the USENET community would rather have them moderating comp.sources.unix. Just because Greg isn't willing to become the cook doesn't mean he should accept burnt eggs. >If you can't *do*, we may not be so keen on having you teach. That's the >way USENET works. Those who put their time and effort and resources into >doing things are the people who make and control the network. If you are >not willing to put those things in, you get no say. Does my vote in the local election not count because I'm not a politician? I think not. A person cannot champion every cause that crops up; I can't fight the rain forest destroyers and try to cure hunger in Africa and try to stop the homeless problem, ad infinitum; but I can pick one item and fight for it. Greg chooses not to lead the moderatorship job but that is no reason to criticize him for complaining. Those who complain do a lot more for the process that idle wall flowers. (Thoreau or Patrick Henry or somebody has a much more elegant phrasing of this position.) Scott Simpson TRW scott@coyote.trw.com
jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov30.165238.2018@ism.isc.com> johnan@mchale.ism.isc.com (John Antypas) writes: >- Come up with a way to hire Rich full time to do this job Even assuming we could come up with a scheme for collecting the money and assuming that people did pay, and ignoring the legal implications of this being for pay instead of free, there are a few points that are being overlooked here. First, Rich may not want to quit his current job to become a full time moderator. Some people like their jobs or have career plans that depend on them. Second, what system resources would the moderator use to do his job. Unless he is one of those guys with a raised floor in the spare bedroom he is probably using the systems at work, after hours, to receive, store, compile, test, and post the sources. Testing portability requires access to a varity of systems and software. Does the budget for this moderator include supplying the hardware and software resources needed for the job? I favor splitting the job among multiple moderators if they can be found.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/01/90)
I'm not sure I would classify being a moderator as being a deadly job. It's not that. People do it. All of us also have other full time (and more) work. It's adding moderating a newsgroup to this that gets tough. It's a lot of little things. Most people don't see a lot of what you do, but that's tolerable. In fact, the "fame" is sometimes the worst part. You're the one people go to with questions. People expect you to be a server for the files you've posted or dealt with. "I didn't see XX, could you send it to me?" -- a pefectly honest and simple request, and you're certain to have XX, too. But you can't be a fileserver for everybody who makes this simple and honest request. And of course the tons of other mail. The comments, the suggestions. USENET is so big now that even though each one on its own is friendly and often helpful, dealing with it day-in and day-out on top of your other work starts to get you. But this is all not too bad (or we'd stop). To be honest the worst thing is the inevitable USENET flamers, who either send you mail or post. Or parade your name on the front pages of the newspapers. :-( But, as I said, we still do it, mostly. Never perfectly -- and we don't expect to be immune from criticism -- but how do you solve the problem of tens of thousands of readers who can all complain by pressing one key and zapping a quick note? If all you did was piss off .1% of the readers of a 30,000 reader group, that would be 30 mail messages or postings. (Thank god most people are lurkers!) I probably sound like a spoiled brat lamenting about the tortures of fame, but I hope I have expanded some people's understanding of it. It's not all bad. It certainly has positive points, too, and nobody forced us into the task. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (12/02/90)
As quoted from <47587@sequent.UUCP> by vandys@sequent.uucp (Andrew Valencia): +--------------- | chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) writes: | >Where are they? Comp.sources.misc has had an opening for a new | >moderator for a month now. I haven't seen this flood of qualified | | I'm a little confused. I immediately sent mail offering my services. | I received mail back indicating that 16-odd people had applied for the +--------------- At least 56. Have you considered what it is like to try to select the "best qualified" person for moderator when it all has to be done over the net in mail? ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov30.165238.2018@ism.isc.com> johnan@mchale.ism.isc.com (John Antypas) writes: > >While Rich may be unable to handle the archives, it should be noted that >Rich does not, in fact, earn his living from this. USENET is a cooperative >net. Perhaps we could achived the on-demand response people want if we >starting earning some cash from it.... Great. Rich gets a five- or six-figure salary off other people's labour (programming, in this case). The programmers, without whom he'd have no newsgroup or money, get nothing. >- Come up with a way to hire Rich full time to do this job Hey, why Rich? Why not me? Five bucks a site? Ten pounds a site? Nine thousand sites on the net? I'll take it! I'm sure many thousands of others will, too. Ah, but that won't last for long, as my site and many others will have to have their feeds cut off, for `comp.sources.unix' will have become a commercial enterprise. What, you say? `comp.sources.unix' is taken? Damn. Well, guess that means I'll have to trump up some `yes' votes for a moderated `rec.sport.yo-yo', `soc.culture.yogurt', or `comp.sys.trs80.model1' with myself as the moderator. But this is going to interfere with my studies and other endeavours, so I'll have to demand a salary. $50,000/yr should do, provided I also get a roomy air-conditioned office with a big, important-looking nameplate on the mahogany desk, medical and dental insurance, a company car, a hefty pension plan, and relocation expenses to Tahiti. --Scott -- Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (12/02/90)
scott@wiley.uucp (Scott Simpson) writes: >What a bunch of crap. If you take over a moderatorship and you don't >live up to your time commitments then you have gone back on your word. >There are people who do have the time to moderate comp.sources.unix >and who have volunteered and I and many others in the USENET community >would rather have them moderating comp.sources.unix. Just because Greg >isn't willing to become the cook doesn't mean he should accept burnt >eggs. First of all, I don't remember Rich *ever* promising *ANY* level of service. When it comes to burnt eggs, when you pay for NO EGGS, don't complain when they come burnt. Nobody's asking you to eat them. If you simply choose to throw a moderator out on his ear based on volume. comp.sources.unix was never *meant* to be a high throughput group. That's why comp.sources.misc exists. You people are all bitching at Rich when you should be replacing Brandon, who has *ASKED* to be replaced. >>If you can't *do*, we may not be so keen on having you teach. That's the >>way USENET works. Those who put their time and effort and resources into >>doing things are the people who make and control the network. If you are >>not willing to put those things in, you get no say. Your wonderful little demonstration of logic leads me to conclude that you should cancel your article, and not post until you've done something for USENET. >(Thoreau or Patrick Henry or somebody has a much >more elegant phrasing of this position.) >Scott Simpson TRW scott@coyote.trw.com Thoreau was a loudmouth. Henry was part of a revolution. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov29.172427.11437@acc.stolaf.edu> rabe@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) writes: >I don't know R $alz. I don't dislike him. But I have heard story >after story from people who don't get even so much as a 1 line note >from him when they submit something letting them know that he got >it. He apparently doesn't even have the courtesy to say "I got >your submission, I'm buried over my neck in work right now, I'll >look at it sometime in the future." Apparently, he just doesn't >even give people that much, which sure as hell wouldn't take a lot >of time out of his work day. Speaking as the curator of NNTP & RN/RRN, moderator of a newsgroup and one-time coordinator of a mailing list, it is VERY hard to find time to reply personally to everyone. I get around the problem with a program that works kinda like vacation. It just sends a message back to the sender saying that I have received the mail. I still occassionally get flamed at for being so impersonal. I guess it is the fate we deserve. Occasionally, I get fed up with or hurt by with all the folks out there who expect the same kind of service they get when they by software support contracts. USENET is just not like that. Perhaps someone will commercialize USENET in the same manner that efforts are underway to commercialize the internet. Then, people can pay other people for such efforts. At that time, such complaints have a real place. Until then, I guess it's just more flame wars. -- Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking Olan uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!sob and Systems Support Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine
warkent@ltisun7.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) (12/03/90)
In article <49924@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) writes:
First, Rich may not want to [etc.]
I've seen a lot of comments of the form "Rich may think this or Rich may
think that" but I have yet to see a comment from Mr. Salz himself. As the
moderator of comp.sources.unix, does he not have a responsibility to state his
position or is this an annual debate in which case there should be something
relevant in the USENET Guidelines?
For the record, I support the idea of an editor who farms out packages to
reviewers. I would even volunteer to review software although I can only
promise to do one or two reviews per quarter depending on the complexity
of the package. Furthermore, as has already been suggested, there is no
reason why the job of editor cannot be automated by introducing an "editor
server" for controlling the passage of items to be reviewed between submitters
and reviewers. The only human intervention necessary is perhaps in the
area of assuring a minimum of competance in the reviewers (i.e. reviewing
the qualifications of potential reviewers and removing a reviewer in the
case of justified complaints).
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch | "In fact, the "fame" is sometimes the
Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, | worst part." - Brad Templeton, humble
EPFL, Suisse. | moderator & bookseller.tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) (12/04/90)
In message <Dec.1.19.31.05.1990.8911@turbo.bio.net>, lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: > > comp.sources.unix was never *meant* to be a high throughput group. > That's why comp.sources.misc exists. You people are all bitching at > Rich when you should be replacing Brandon, who has *ASKED* to be > replaced. Exactly. Please continue the debate in this newsgroup about alternative source code distribution techniques. I think a mailing list with servers that understand a form markup could be an interesting way of collecting feedback for both authors and users. But leave Rich's c.s.u alone. It is what it is, and many people are grateful for it the way it is. Besides, I'm sure Rich will take into account any *really* good ideas we come up with. -- Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov27.075737.16836@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: >Let's get real here, huh? Yes. I agree. Get real, Larry. -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (12/07/90)
In article <2756B0EF.1971@wilbur.coyote.trw.com> scott@wiley.UUCP (Scott Simpson) writes:
<What a bunch of crap. If you take over a moderatorship and you don't
<live up to your time commitments then you have gone back on your word.
Either volunteer to take over the job or KWITCHERBITCHIN already! Who
died and left you king?
<There are people who do have the time to moderate comp.sources.unix
<and who have volunteered and I and many others in the USENET community
<would rather have them moderating comp.sources.unix.
Where are they...?
<Just because Greg
<isn't willing to become the cook doesn't mean he should accept burnt
<eggs.
Unless, of course, the's getting the eggs at virtually no cost to
himself. If you don't like the product or service, GTAR (Go To
Another Restaurant)!
kEITHepeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (02/22/91)
In article <1990Nov29.172427.11437@acc.stolaf.edu> rabe@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) writes: > But, from what I have been reading, there > are at least a few people out there who are qualified who are > willing to do the job. Why not let them? OK, post a CFD to news.announce.newgroups for your new moderated source group. It *doesn't* have to be comp.sources.unix, you know. Call it, I don't know, comp.sources.reviewed? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (02/24/91)
In article <SJM9SU3@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Nov29.172427.11437@acc.stolaf.edu> rabe@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) writes: >> But, from what I have been reading, there >> are at least a few people out there who are qualified who are >> willing to do the job. Why not let them? > >OK, post a CFD to news.announce.newgroups for your new moderated source >group. It *doesn't* have to be comp.sources.unix, you know. Call it, I >don't know, comp.sources.reviewed? >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com >+1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?" I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February 4th! (The article is attached.) I received a grand total of one letter in reply, and have seen no discussion of the proposal. Ironically, my posting suggested that a Call for Votes would be issued today. I was about to give up on the idea because of the apparent apathy. Do people want to discuss it? Should there be a call for votes? >Article 805 of news.announce.newgroups: >Path: rick.doc.ca!dgbt!ncs.dnd.ca!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear >From: andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) >Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups >Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION -- comp.sources.reviewed >Message-ID: <Feb.3.21.43.50.1991.19484@turbo.bio.net> >Date: 4 Feb 91 05:43:32 GMT >Article-I.D.: turbo.Feb.3.21.43.50.1991.19484 >Sender: lear@turbo.bio.net >Followup-To: news.groups >Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa >Lines: 54 >Approved: lear@turbo.bio.net >Nntp-Posting-Host: calvin.doc.ca > >This is a formal Call For Discussion for a proposed newsgroup >"comp.sources.reviewed". The Discussion Period will last to February >23, 1991, at which time a Call For Votes will be issued (pending the >results of the discussion). > >The newsgroup "comp.sources.reviewed" is being proposed now for three >reasons: > (1) to improve the timely distribution of high-quality software. > (2) to give software authors a more responsive "proving ground" for > their work. > (3) to distribute software with informative review information > attached such that readers can decide if it will be useful. > >I have recently completed a Call for Peer Reviewers and received replies >>From enough interested people (31) to suggest that a Peer Reviewed >newsgroup may be feasible and worth pursuing. > >The charter of the proposed group "comp.sources.reviewed" would be as >follows: > >"Comp.sources.reviewed" is a moderated newsgroup for the distribution of >program sources that have been subjected to a Peer Reviewed process. >Similar to the process used for academic journals, submissions are sent >to a moderator (unless a better option is discussed, I will act as the >moderator) who then sends the sources to Peer Review volunteers for >evaluation. The Reviewers are asked to provided a timely evaluation of >the software by compiling and running it on their machine. If time does >not permit them to complete a review, they are responsible for asking >the moderator to select another reviewer. > >The duties of the Moderator are to accept submissions and assign them to >reviewers, collect the reviews and make publication decisions, and post >the accepted sources. He is also be responsible for maintaining a list >of volunteers interested in acting as peer reviewers. (Volunteers can >send a note to "reviewed@calvin.doc.ca" to be placed on the list.) The >Moderator may seek the assistance of one or more Associate Moderators, >especially for the maintenance of an archive site (if one can be >arranged), and the rapid posting of patches to already-published >sources. (Many volunteers suggested that having Associate Moderators >assign the submission to reviewers and compiling the evaluations was >adding too much bureaucracy.) > >If the Moderator and Peer Reviewers judge a submission to be acceptable, >the sources will be posted along with the written comments provided >by the Reviewers. If a submission is not found to be acceptable, the >submitter will be provided with the Reviewers' comments, and they will >have the option of addressing those comments and submitting the sources >again. > > >-- >Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA > andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET > Bill Watterson for President! -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA andrew@calvin.doc.CA "The interface IS the program."
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb24.034947.10921@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: >In article <SJM9SU3@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>OK, post a CFD to news.announce.newgroups for your new moderated source >>group. It *doesn't* have to be comp.sources.unix, you know. Call it, I >>don't know, comp.sources.reviewed? > >I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to >news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February >4th! (The article is attached.) The simple truth is that most people are very satisfied with the fine job that Rich $alz does. I sincerly doubt that there is that much high quality software being sent to Rich. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I've never written a device driver, but I have written a device driver manual" -- Robert Hartman, IDE Corp.
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) (02/25/91)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: >The simple truth is that most people are very satisfied with the fine >job that Rich $alz does. I think that this is a wrong assumption. Most people have now started to depend on mail servers, BITFTP, anon UUCP and (for those on the internet) FTP'ing. I think that most people are DISsatisfied with the state of comp.sources.unix, but have found a resonable alternative. >I sincerly doubt that there is that much high quality software being >sent to Rich. I agree; the software that IS posted to comp.sources.unix is VERY high quality. However, I know for a fact that software has been sent to him, and that it has fallen into a black hole. Lots of it. Hell, couldnt a moderator actually be on the lookout for good software and make a point of distributing it, rather than waiting for it to be submitted? Would it not be better to have more postings of perhaps a lower quality software, rather than 15 postings a year of higher quality? The enormous increase of mail servers, BITFTP replies, etc. are costing the USENET a fortune, and the obvious remedy (mass postings) are becoming a rarity. What aggravates a lot of people is the notion that a moderator is some sort of god, who is doing the entire net a favor. They ARE doing everyone a favor, and it IS appreciated, as long as they are consistent enough to spread software quickly. Otherwise, you get 1,000 requests for the same software every week via email. However, what about the organizations who are PAYING for the BITFTP replies, mail servers transmissions, etc. and get no recognition? If you think that this amount is negligible, you obviously havent priced the net lately. -- dean@coplex.UUCP Dean A. Brooks Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Ky UUCP: !uunet!coplex!dean
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (02/25/91)
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: >Would it not be better to have more postings of perhaps a lower >quality software, rather than 15 postings a year of higher quality? This is precisely what a number of people have been arguing against. It is the reason that comp.sources.misc exists. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson) (02/28/91)
I didn't bother responding because I thought it was such an obviously Good Thing that it would be passed by aclamation (sp?). After all, what are the disadvantages? If it is created and turns out to be a success then we can revise the charter of the other comp.sources groups to make them peer-reviewed. If it dies we can simply drop it. What have we got to lose? PS I took alt.sources.d out of the crosspost line as we do not get it. Paul -- Paul Johnson UUCP: <world>!mcvax!ukc!gec-mrc!paj --------------------------------!-------------------------|------------------- GEC-Marconi Research is not | Telex: 995016 GECRES G | Tel: +44 245 73331 responsible for my opinions. | Inet: paj@gec-mrc.co.uk | Fax: +44 245 75244
dick@smith.UUCP (Dick Smith) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb24.034947.10921@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: >I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to >news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February >4th! > >I received a grand total of one letter in reply, and have seen no >discussion of the proposal. Ironically, my posting suggested that a >Call for Votes would be issued today. I was about to give up on the >idea because of the apparent apathy. > >Do people want to discuss it? Should there be a call for votes? Here's what I assumed from the current traffic: (1) People don't want to discuss it... it was discussed at great length under various headings prior to the CFD. I recall you saying that you had sufficient volunteers to run the "..reviewed" group. That alone indicates some interest. (2) There SHOULD be a call for votes. I, for one, will vote yes. No matter what one thinks about the performance of other groups, it would be good to have more quality source code available. I think most of the net will agree. -- Dick Smith dick@smith.uucp R. H. E. Smith Corp. dick%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com soon--> dick@smith.chi.il.us