chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/01/90)
According to brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton): >People who work to build usenet do things, but they have >no duty to do so. I'll agree with this statement, as far as it goes. But this vital adjunct must not be omitted: A person who accepts a volunteer job has a responsibility either (1) to do the job or (2) to resign. Rich Salz is not doing his job. The obligation on him now is either (1) to resume the wonderful job he has done in the past, or (2) to resign and let someone else do it. In other words, Rich: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II
hack@moxie.lonestar.org (Greg Hackney) (12/02/90)
In article <2756A27D.5D54@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > Rich Salz is not doing his job. The obligation on him now is either > (1) to resume the wonderful job he has done in the past, or (2) to > resign and let someone else do it. > In other words, Rich: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." A stream will always find a path around a rock, i.e.: 1. Creation of new newsgroups like alt.sources 2. The growing occurence of FTP sites offering their sponsored source code. 3. Source postings to specialty newsgroups, i.e. comp.mail.elm -- Greg Hackney hack@moxie.lonestar.org
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (12/03/90)
In article <2756A27D.5D54@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Rich Salz is not doing his job. The obligation on him now is either >(1) to resume the wonderful job he has done in the past, or (2) to >resign and let someone else do it. > >In other words, Rich: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." you create a few new newsgroups and this lets you tell other people how to do their job? last time i checked it looked as though r$ was doing a fine job. seems as though the jury is out on whether or not he is doing his job. you know the deal - if you think there is a need for a new newsgroup, call for the discussion, collect everyone's opinion, then call for the vote. until that time, r$ is the moderator. i expect that you will be calling for the discussion to remove comp.sources.unix any time now, right? > "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed > by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II lose the .sig quote, chip. it might have been funny a few months ago, but it is getting quite old. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "Rich Salz is not doing his job. The obligation on him now is ... to resign" -- Chip Salzenberg
jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (12/03/90)
[Some general comments on this whole subject -- this might even be
considered a small smoulder.
smoulder (v. intr.) 1. To burn with little smoke or flame. 2. To
exist in a suppressed state. 3. To manifest repressed anger or
hatred.
There is also a noun definition, but my "nouning" of the verbal forms
(esp. defs. 1 and 3) suits my purposes here.]
Lotsa noise on this subject. Lotsa *big* packages shipped out. This all
takes time by the moderator... to compile on various platforms, to test on
various platforms, to search for (on even a cursory basis) "obvious" security
holes or other "badness"...
I don't know Rich. I've never met Rich, and may never do so. Still, I'm
reasonably happy with what shows up. If it takes a while for something
good and useful to appear, well.... we're all certainly paying 'top dollar'
for it, aren't we?
The tenor of much recent traffic on this subject seems to be "C.s.u is my
God Given Right! I'm ENTITLED to it!" I disagree with this attitude. C.s.u
is a gift, from many generous individuals. I have found much of great utility
in this group, and I am grateful for it.
Many of the voiciferous complainers (and you know who you are!) should sit
back, reflect on, and be thankful for, their blessings. *They* need an
'attitude adjustment'.
Thank you for your attention,
--
John G Dobnick (JGD2)
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd
"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safirejmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (12/03/90)
In article <18768@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <2756A27D.5D54@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >> "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed >> by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II >lose the .sig quote, chip. it might have been funny a few months >ago, but it is getting quite old. About as old as your continued complaints about comp.unix.wizards, Eliot Lear, and the internals vote, I'd say... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "...flames are a specific art form of Usenet..." -- Gregory C. Woodbury
sean@utodaycom (Sean Fulton) (12/07/90)
Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of students at Yale; the Rich Salz defenders are mostly professionals who take time away from making money to contribute to Usenet. Does this seem strange to anyone? -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
chrisb@risky.Convergent.COM (Chris Bertin) (12/08/90)
In article <1842@utodaycom>, sean@utodaycom (Sean Fulton) writes: > Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of > students at Yale; the Rich Salz defenders are mostly professionals who > take time away from making money to contribute to Usenet. > The problem doesn't seem to be doing or not doing one's volunteer work. The problem is not providing any feed back. If Rich Salz posted an article saying something like 'I am overworked and I won't be able to look at any of the c.s.u submissions for at least n weeks', most people would understand. And that should not take that much of his time... Chris -- Chris Bertin | chrisb@risky.Convergent.COM Unisys | or (408) 435-3762 | ...!uunet!pyramid!ctnews!risky!chrisb
taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (12/08/90)
Sean Fulton writes: > Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of > students at Yale; the Rich Salz defenders are mostly professionals > who take time away from making money to contribute to Usenet. Well, Sean, I wouldn't be too fast off the gun here. I'm an ersatz professional, have been involved with Usenet and Unix for quite a few years, even moderate a group or two (comp.society and ba.announce) and I personally believe that Rich has been slipping up on his job to the point where it would be most appropriate at this juncture for him to propose a viable alternative approach to moderating the comp.sources.unix group. Further, Rich and I have been friends for years too, and I know that as an individual he is of, what's the phrase?, the highest moral and ethical fiber. :-) He's a good guy, and like Muddy Waters might say, he's just got one hell of a job on the side... The point here isn't whether or not Rich is a nice person, or whether or not moderators should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, but whether or not the needs of the Usenet community are being met. I think that with the current poor turnaround time on source code being submitted to Rich, coupled with the highly sporadic nature of the articles themselves, the needs of the community are not being met. A caveat; I don't believe that any volunteer, on the side, is going to be able to find sufficient time to properly moderate the group, including testing out all software before release (as Rich does currently). I am much more in favor of a team moderation effort, where the rather incredible workload of the job is distributed among a team of people, each expert in a specific field/genre of software... Of course, I'd also vote in favor of the Usenix Association paying for a qualified person to do this job part/full time (though if someone could devote 10-20 hours a week, I'm sure things would be much more on track than they are now). Heck, some of the best software I have on my computer, some of the most common packages (including rn, netnews, and elm) have gotten to my machine via the comp.sources.unix channel. It's a GREAT idea, an excellent distribution mechanism, and it's fun too. It just isn't working... -- Dave Taylor Intuitive Systems Mountain View, California taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (12/08/90)
In article <1842@utodaycom> sean@utoday.UUCP (Sean Fulton) writes:
<Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of
<students at Yale; the Rich Salz defenders are mostly professionals who
<take time away from making money to contribute to Usenet.
<
<Does this seem strange to anyone?
Your message, you mean? Indeed it does!
First, I (one "student at Yale"--has anyone seen another on this group?)
am *not* bashing Rich. When he does his task, he does it well. But he's
not doing it. And he won't even accept the dozen or so offers of help which
have been posted here.
Second, there are plenty of others who are "bashing" Rich, including
"professionals who...".
Third, that/those student(s) at Yale are also taking time away from making
money to contribute to USENET.
Fourth, is `sean@utodaycom' a valid address? If not, please take time away
from making money and fix it.
--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_.jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (12/09/90)
From article <27662@cs.yale.edu>, by horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne): > In article <1842@utodaycom> sean@utoday.UUCP (Sean Fulton) writes: > <Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of > <students at Yale; ... > > First, I (one "student at Yale"--has anyone seen another on this group?) > am *not* bashing Rich. When he does his task, he does it well. But he's > not doing it. ... [And, thus, you are "bashing" him.] Let's deal in some facts, if you please. How long has Rich been moderating c.s.u? And, in that time, how many packages have been released? To answer my own questions... I think Rich assumed the post of c.s.u moderator in July 1986. By my count, this was 4 1/2 years (234 weeks) ago. A very cursory examination of the c.s.u archives on uunet reveals about 450 'packages' issued in that time. This averages out to 1.95 'packages' per week, or one every 3 to 4 days. Conclusion... What's *wrong* with you people? *Two* "fixes" a week aren't sufficient? Are you addicted to a constant flow of free code, or what? Maybe the 'solution' to this situation is to implement what Brian Reid did in the (now moribund?) alt.recipes group. When he 'sent' something out, it actually went into an output queue. A periodic daemon then actually transmitted (a small number of) articles weekly, thus artifically levelling the flow rate. Perhaps a lessening of expectations in this manner would quiet some of the noise we have been hearing? Nahhhh.... too logical. It'd never work. The 'mob' would refuse to understand. Opinion... I suggest all you complainers go crawl back under your rocks! Irkedly, [and yes, that turned into a flame!] -- John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman) (12/10/90)
In article <1987@risky.Convergent.COM> chrisb@risky.Convergent.COM (Chris Bertin) writes:
The problem is not providing any feed back. If Rich Salz posted an
article saying something like 'I am overworked and I won't be able to
look at any of the c.s.u submissions for at least n weeks', most people
would understand.
I must disagree with Chris. Such a posting would just be so much flame
bait. Most people today (IMHO) see a silence in c.s.u and think (if they
give it any thought at all) "Rich must be busy." Ditto the other moderated
groups. A few feel c.s.u is their god given right and will bitch if they
don't get their daily fix. If things are changed it will just lead to
different complaints, perhaps by different people.
// marc
--
// marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us
// {ames,decwrl,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marcjik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/10/90)
In article <1842@utodaycom>, sean@utodaycom (Sean Fulton) writes: |> Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of |> students at Yale; the Rich Salz defenders are mostly professionals who |> take time away from making money to contribute to Usenet. |> |> Does this seem strange to anyone? It really, really annoys me when people state untruths which are so easily proven false. Sean, I can't accuse you of lying, because a person can only lie if he knows that he is not telling the truth, and I don't know if you realize that the statement above just isn't true. I will therefore simply show that it isn't true and let the rest of the net draw its own conclusions. I just went through 147 postings to news.admin on the subject of comp.sources.unix and Rich Salz starting with the one from Larry Blair which started the whole thing. I divided the postings into three categories by saving them to different files -- postings which expressed the belief that the status quo in comp.sources.unix is fine, postings which expressed the belief that change to the status quo is desirable, and postings whose stance were unclear to me. Since my beliefs fall into the second category, I tried to bias my interpretation in favor of the first and third categories in order to make things a bit more fair. The following people posted messages which I thought fell into the "pro status quo" category: From: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) From: chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) From: dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) From: emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) From: jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) From: keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) From: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman) From: reid@wrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) From: rodgers@clausius.mmwb.ucsf.edu From: sean@utodaycom (Sean Fulton) From: tombre@crin.fr (Karl Tombre) From: tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) The following people posted messages which I thought fell into the "pro change" category: From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) From: bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) From: chrisb@risky.Convergent.COM (Chris Bertin) From: gmp@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) From: hack@moxie.lonestar.org (Greg Hackney) From: horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) From: jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) From: jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) From: lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) From: pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) From: rabe@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) From: ruck@reef.cis.ufl.edu (John Ruckstuhl) From: scott@wiley.uucp (Scott Simpson) From: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) From: warkent@ltisun7.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) I won't include the undecided list at this point because it's quite long (there were lots of tangents :-) and doesn't really affect the point I'm trying to make. I apologize to anyone who feels I have grouped them "on the wrong side" in the lists I've posted above. However, even several such misinterpretations would not change the fact that there are quite a few more than "a couple students at Yale" asking for change in comp.sources.unix. Incidentally, I am very, very tired of the old accusation that "students" don't contribute to the Usenet, but "professionals" do; that "students" don't know enough for their postings to be relevant, but "professionals" do; that people who haven't been around the Usenet since its creation don't have a say in anything that happens on it, but that the old-timers always do. Give me a break. I'm not trying to prove anything in this posting. I'm not trying to say, "See, more people are pro change than anti change, so there should be a change!" I'm just trying to prevent the unwarranted belittling of one side of this debate. Let's try to discuss things reasonably, people? -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/10/90)
In article <8195@uwm.edu>, jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: |> Let's deal in some facts, if you please. Yes, let's. But let's deal with all of the facts, not just the ones that are convenient for you, OK? |> How long has Rich been moderating |> c.s.u? And, in that time, how many packages have been released? |> |> To answer my own questions... |> |> [a calculation that purports to show that since Rich took over, there have |> been an average of two packages per week posted to comp.sources.unix.] |> |> What's *wrong* with you people? *Two* "fixes" a week aren't sufficient? |> Are you addicted to a constant flow of free code, or what? Are you really trying to claim that an average calculation over the entire life of comp.sources.unix (with Rich moderating it) is a valid indication of the actual *current* status of the newsgroup? That's completely ridiculous. Your analysis completely ignores the most important issues being discussed here. First of all, we've been discussing the chronological (as opposed to qualitative -- I don't think anyone here has challenged Rich's ability to do a very good job on the submissions that *do* get posted) consistency of Rich's moderation. Over the last couple of years, it has become completely impossible for an author to know, after submitting something to comp.sources.unix, whether it would take a week, a month, or even a year for the submission to actually be posted to the newsgroup. Your calculations ignore this. Second, as I have pointed out in another message, your calculations are only relevant if you make the base assumption that the number of submissions to the newsgroup hasn't risen since Rich took over. But, in fact, it is almost certainly the case that the number of submissions *has* risen, in which case the output of the newsgroup should *also* rise; if it does not, then the inevitable affect is longer delays, which is exactly what is being protested. Third, as I have pointed out in another message, it is ludicrous to try to claim two packages are posted to c.s.u per week, when six of the last twelve months have seen *no packages at all* posted to the newsgroup, or at least, not according to what's in the archives on uunet.uu.net. -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (12/10/90)
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: >> Let's deal in some facts, if you please. > Yes, let's. But let's deal with all of the facts, not just the ones > that are convenient for you, OK? Well, while we're setting rules, let's not make unilateral decisions on just what is important about posting software to comp.sources.unix, OK? >> How long has Rich been moderating c.s.u? And, in that time, how many >> packages have been released? >> To answer my own questions... >> [a calculation that purports to show that since Rich took over, there >> have been an average of two packages per week posted to >> comp.sources.unix.] I can't imagine what, outside of kindergarden level innumeracy, could have prompted you to choose the term "purports"; either you understand the calculation, or you do not. I'm pretty sure my twelve year old daughter could walk you through it, if it gave you that much trouble. >> What's *wrong* with you people? *Two* "fixes" a week aren't >> sufficient? Are you addicted to a constant flow of free code, or >> what? > Are you really trying to claim that an average calculation over the > entire life of comp.sources.unix (with Rich moderating it) is a valid > indication of the actual *current* status of the newsgroup? That's > completely ridiculous. Well, my site's undergone a hardware upgrade this year, but the last article count I saw for comp.sources.unix was 501, so at least that many postings have hit the group. That doesn't at all look to me like the signs of an idle moderator. And, strangely enough, there's an article currently online in the group for each day of this site's expire time. Looks like he's just been _pouring_ sources out, to me. > Your analysis completely ignores the most important issues being > discussed here. Unfortunately, that judgement of "importance" is not widely shared. > First of all, we've been discussing the chronological (as opposed to > qualitative -- I don't think anyone here has challenged Rich's ability > to do a very good job on the submissions that *do* get posted) > consistency of Rich's moderation. As was noted by another poster in response to the article with the graph, what we see is that the group's output has _always_ been bunchy. All we have now is a bunch of newbies who just noticed the fact and are trying to pretend they've discovered heliocentrism, or something. > Over the last couple of years, it has become completely impossible for > an author to know, after submitting something to comp.sources.unix, > whether it would take a week, a month, or even a year for the > submission to actually be posted to the newsgroup. Your calculations > ignore this. Impatient authors have and have always had a multitude of alternate publication paths. Some have used them. My site was using trn off an ftp site before it came out in c.s.u. It is a fair assumption that authors who wait patiently for their software to be posted do so because they are willing to trade time for the imprimateur of quality Rich's excellent moderation gives the software published through c.s.u. Since the main value of the group is its reputation, and that depends entirely on the diligence and probity of the moderator, proposals to go to a multi-moderator system or to replace the moderator are quite beside the point. I can think of perhaps three other people on the net I'd trust with the job, and none of them have stepped forward to offer assistance. > Second, as I have pointed out in another message, your calculations > are only relevant if you make the base assumption that the number of > submissions to the newsgroup hasn't risen since Rich took over. But, > in fact, it is almost certainly the case that the number of > submissions *has* risen, in which case the output of the newsgroup > should *also* rise; if it does not, then the inevitable affect is > longer delays, which is exactly what is being protested. Bingo! We have a scarce and irreplaceable resource, and aside from the false to fact character assassination postings here, he is also being abused by overuse. Are there really that many people on the net who write software _worth_ the quality of review that sees it published in comp.sources.unix? > Third, as I have pointed out in another message, it is ludicrous to > try to claim two packages are posted to c.s.u per week, when six of > the last twelve months have seen *no packages at all* posted to the > newsgroup, or at least, not according to what's in the archives on > uunet.uu.net. You slept through your statistics classes, or you took a pass when common sense was handed out? That is the biggest set of logical contradictions yet posted in this pile of newbie nattering. If there are sixteen packages posted every other month, or eight per month, the average is the same. If you have a point aside from your first amendment right to bitch in print at length, you have yet to make it. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/10/90)
In article <1990Dec10.055351.13221@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: |> I can't imagine what, outside of kindergarden level innumeracy, could |> have prompted you to choose the term "purports"; either you understand |> the calculation, or you do not. I'm pretty sure my twelve year old |> daughter could walk you through it, if it gave you that much trouble. My apologies for the word choice, which, now that I've looked up the word "purport" in my dictionary didn't quite convey the idea that I meant to convey. I should have said "alleges," not "purports" -- the idea I meant to convey was that I was reserving judgment one way or the other. In any case, the insults with which your article is riddled can do nothing but increase the flamage without producing any significant discussion; so why do you insist on including them in your response? I may have criticized what John Dobnick wrote in my response to his message, but as far as I recall, I didn't criticize *him*; you, on the other hand, appear to take great pains to find opportunities to insult me in your message. Oh, wait, I forgot, you're one of the elite who are not considered "newbies," so you're allowed to insult anyone you want, hmm? Getting back to the subject at hand, I did have some doubt about Dobnick's calculations, mainly because I don't think he took into account the fact that there's a huge block of sources right in the earliest part of the comp.sources.unix archives that were *not* posted while Rich was moderator. Although I'm not certain that Dobnick counted those in his calculations, I believe that he did; hence, the validity of the statistics were questionable in my mind; hence the use of the word "purports." |> Well, my site's undergone a hardware upgrade this year, but the last |> article count I saw for comp.sources.unix was 501, so at least that many |> postings have hit the group. That doesn't at all look to me like the |> signs of an idle moderator. And, strangely enough, there's an article |> currently online in the group for each day of this site's expire time. |> Looks like he's just been _pouring_ sources out, to me. Oh, this is just grand. "There have been 501 postings in the newsgroup over the past n years, which means that the moderator must not be idle." This is exactly the logic to which I objected when Dobnick posted it, and I'm going to object to it in your posting. One more time -- a lifetime average does not imply anything about the CURRENT status of the newsgroup. As for recent activity in the newsgroup, it would be completely ludicrous to claim that one week of activity in the newsgroup belies all claims that there have been any recent idle blocks in the newsgroup at all. It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion. It is entirely possible that the activity of the past week will taper out as it has many times in the past, and that we will then see several months with no activity at all, despite many items waiting to be posted. Your assertiong that "this week has been active" does nothing whatsoever to belie the claim that the TREND has been toward more idle gaps and less activity. |> > Your analysis completely ignores the most important issues being |> > discussed here. |> |> Unfortunately, that judgement of "importance" is not widely shared. That is not clear to me. The fact that you do not agree with it is no indication that it "is not widely shared;" it is just an indication that you do not agree with it. I have seen quite a few other postings from other people expressing ideas similar to what I have expressed in my postings; those postings give *me* the impression that I am not alone in my "judgement [sic] of `importance'." I'm sorry if you don't agree. |> As was noted by another poster in response to the article with the graph, |> what we see is that the group's output has _always_ been bunchy. All we |> have now is a bunch of newbies who just noticed the fact and are trying to |> pretend they've discovered heliocentrism, or something. And as was noted by me in at least two other postings, if the number of submissions goes up and the gaps remain consistent (or, worse, get longer), then the gaps are effectively LARGER because the gap for each individual package is larger. Once more, we see the "newbies" argument -- people who haven't been around the net forever don't know anything and don't have the right to speak about anything. Give me a break, Kent, it just doesn't wash. As I noted in response to the article to which you refer above, if the output has already been bunchy, then perhapse we've ALWAYS had the problem! I believe someone else pointed out near the start of the discussion that there were complaints about the irregularity in c.s.u postings as much as TWO YEARS AGO. The argument, "That's how it's always been, so it can't be wrong," doesn't wash either. |> Impatient authors have and have always had a multitude of alternate |> publication paths. Some have used them. My site was using trn off an ftp |> site before it came out in c.s.u. It is a fair assumption that authors |> who wait patiently for their software to be posted do so because they |> are willing to trade time for the imprimateur of quality Rich's |> excellent moderation gives the software published through c.s.u. To be frank, for my software at least, I don't give a damn about "the imprimateur of quality of Rich's excellent moderation." Until the start of this discussion, I had no idea at all that people considered that "imprimateur of quality" to be such an important aspect of the group. I posted my sources to comp.sources.unix because the name of the group, and the description of it in the list of newsgroups, and the other software that I saw posted to it, implied to me that c.s.u was the right place for my sources. I post to c.s.u because that's the most appropriate place for my sources to go; with or without Rich's "imprimateur," that's where my sources should be. Incidentally, Rich's moderation has never made one useful change to the sources I've posted to c.s.u; as I described in my first posting in this discussion, the only changes he did make were made without consulting to me, were wrong, and caused me a lot of grief. I'm afraid I just can't see how that fits in with the high standard of quality which so many people attribute to Rich. I agree that for what he posts, he does a good job. But I don't think his job is so sterling that no one in the world can match it, and I don't think that he never makes mistakes, and I don't think that authors who post to c.s.u do so exclusively because they value Rich's expert opinion. |> Since the main value of the group is its reputation, and that depends |> entirely on the diligence and probity of the moderator, proposals to go |> to a multi-moderator system or to replace the moderator are quite beside |> the point. I can think of perhaps three other people on the net I'd |> trust with the job, and none of them have stepped forward to offer |> assistance. First of all, as I just discussed above, it is not at all alear to me that "the main value of the group is its reputation." Perhaps, to some people that is the main value of the group. But I don't think that's true for all people. Second, your opinion does not law make. Just because you would only accept three other people on the net for the job, does not mean that there are only three other people on the net who are capable of doing the job. Oh, wait, I forgot, you're one of the non-newbie elite, so your opinion is fact, hmm? |> Bingo! We have a scarce and irreplaceable resource, and aside from the |> false to fact character assassination postings here, he is also being |> abused by overuse. Are there really that many people on the net who |> write software _worth_ the quality of review that sees it published in |> comp.sources.unix? Oh, I see! The reason all of his delays are OK is because the sources that are being sent to him shouldn't even BE in comp.sources.unix! Yes, sir, that's a great argument, let me tell you! |> > Third, as I have pointed out in another message, it is ludicrous to |> > try to claim two packages are posted to c.s.u per week, when six of |> > the last twelve months have seen *no packages at all* posted to the |> > newsgroup, or at least, not according to what's in the archives on |> > uunet.uu.net. |> |> You slept through your statistics classes, or you took a pass when |> common sense was handed out? That is the biggest set of logical |> contradictions yet posted in this pile of newbie nattering. If there are |> sixteen packages posted every other month, or eight per month, the |> average is the same. Do you see the word "average" anywhere in the paragraph which you have quoted above. As I have said, over and over again, what we're discussing NOW is what's happening NOW, not what was happening three or four years ago! An average of two packages per week over the last four years (a statistic which, as I've pointed out, I question, but that's beside the point) does NOT prove a current rate of two packages per week! And, as I pointed out in the paragraph which you quote, the six empty months in the last twelve would seem to imply that the current rate is NOT two packages per week! Is this such a difficult distinction to understand? -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L. Masco) (12/11/90)
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > Incidentally, I am very, very tired of the old accusation that "students" > don't contribute to the Usenet, but "professionals" do; that "students" don't > know enough for their postings to be relevant, but "professionals" do; that > people who haven't been around the Usenet since its creation don't have a say > in anything that happens on it, but that the old-timers always do. Give me a > break. Heh. An example: I'm an undergraduate Physics major, and for the last year and a half have been maintaining and (when necessary) moderating the SPACE Digest, the non-USENET side of the newsgroup sci.space; When Ted Anderson (a professional) left CMU, he asked for volunteers from the set of CMU subscribers to the Digest and its companion "best-of" magazine (which I and another undergraduate, Jon Bennett (jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu), now moderate). It's foolish to generalize about *any* group, except about the definitions of said group. Happening to be taking classes and working towards a degree (and probably young -- I'm 20, 19 when I took over the Digest and Magazine) does not imply that a person will be irresponsible and/or immature. And, as DDMI has recently dramatically illustrated, being a professional does not guarantee that one will not be a bozo. -- Todd L. Masco | tm2b+@{andrew.cmu.edu,andrew.bitnet} | "Boxes."
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec10.073955.28681@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this > newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion. [ etc. ] Look, Rich *does* post software in batches. At time t after a batch there *is* a flood size f(t) of complaints, where f is a generally increasing function. These are facts. You try to explain them by saying ``when there are enough complaints, Rich posts a batch to shut people up.'' In other words, complaints cause postings. I find it more plausible that Rich doesn't bother reading every idiotic complaint in this group, and people shut up when they see all the useful software they get. In other words, postings cause a drop in complaints. There is no logical argument that will prove one of these theories correct. Correlation does not imply cause. So stop assuming that your whining is the impetus behind further postings in comp.sources.unix. > And, as I pointed out in the paragraph > which you quote, the six empty months in the last twelve would seem to imply > that the current rate is NOT two packages per week! Jon, other people in this discussion have bothered to check their facts, rather than posting a hundred lines of ``comp.sources.unix *could* be slowing down, so panic panic panic!'' I suggest you gather some relevant statistics before you post further drivel. No offense intended. ---Dan
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/11/90)
In article <12102:Dec1020:45:5990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: |> In article <1990Dec10.073955.28681@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: |> > It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this |> > newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion. |> [ etc. ] |> |> You try to explain them by saying ``when there are enough complaints, |> Rich posts a batch to shut people up.'' In other words, complaints cause |> postings. No, I didn't "try to explain them" that way, I said that it is "entirely possible" that that's the case. You might notice, Dan, that in this entire discussion, the paragraph above is the first one in which I suggested any correlation between complaints and postings to comp.sources.unix. I hadn't suggested it before because I don't really believe it's very likely. I mentioned it in the posting from which you excerpt only to explain why the increase in postings in the past week cannot be taken as prima facie evidence that Rich posts to c.s.u regularly. |> I find it more plausible that Rich doesn't bother reading every idiotic |> complaint in this group, and people shut up when they see all the useful |> software they get. In other words, postings cause a drop in complaints. I agree that it is likely that Rich has not read the complaints. If he has read them, I agree that it is not likely that they have had a major effect on his rate of posting to c.s.u. I was merely trying to point out, as I said, that it is POSSIBLE that he has read the complaints and that they have affected the rate of posting. That possibility makes analysis of the statistics at face value, without any other considerations, doubtful. I've been steamed about c.s.u ever since I sent him my undel2 package and waited six months for it to get posted. I don't complain about it because I don't feel militantly about it one way or the other; you might have noticed that I didn't jump into this conversation until it had been going on for several days -- when I did finally post, it was only in response to some really bogus logic from Ed Vielmetti that I just couldn't let pass unchallenged :-). I don't consider myself one of the "motivating sources" of this discussion. I don't have enough time right now to take the crusade for better moderation on my own shoulders, although I am willing to help if someone else sets up a multiple-moderator scheme of the type that has already been discussed. Since I know that I can't "lead the way" right now, I'm quite content to let the whole thing die, because I would not expect someone else to do what I am not willing to do myself. Since I do not consider myself one of the main motivators of this discussion, but rather just someone who is trying to present his own opinions because he feels they may help to clarify some issues, I cannot respond to your comments about how people "shut up when they see all the useful software they get" -- I could only respond to them if I had complained in the past and intended to complain in the future. In any case, I will simply point out that I do not consider complaints about ridiculously long delays between submission and posting to be "idiotic." Furthermore, my level of dissatisfaction with c.s.u has been pretty constant since I started to perceive problems. Therefore, your claim about people shutting up doesn't quite wash with me. |> There is no logical argument that will prove one of these theories |> correct. Correlation does not imply cause. So stop assuming that your |> whining is the impetus behind further postings in comp.sources.unix. I made no such assumption. I simply pointed out the possibility. In my opinion, all of my postings have been reasoned attempts to discuss the issue. Your insults about how I'm "whining" and about how the complaints in this newsgroup are "idiotic" are counterproductive and do not add anything to the discussion. Can we please, *please*, PLEASE discuss the ISSUES involved and stop hurling insults? |> > And, as I pointed out in the paragraph |> > which you quote, the six empty months in the last twelve would seem to imply |> > that the current rate is NOT two packages per week! |> |> Jon, other people in this discussion have bothered to check their facts, |> rather than posting a hundred lines of ``comp.sources.unix *could* be |> slowing down, so panic panic panic!'' I suggest you gather some relevant |> statistics before you post further drivel. No offense intended. What exactly do you consider <1990Dec3.064608.22544@athena.mit.edu>, Dan? I spent a couple hours mucking through the ls-ltR listing on uunet.uu.net to get the statistics I posted in that message. Furthermore, when someone claimed that only "two students at Yale" were protesting the current status of c.s.u, I spent an hour going through the entire discussion in order to objectively verify that that claim was just not true. I find it amusing that you call my complaints "idiotic" and tell me that I'm "whining" and tell me that I'm posting "drivel," and then say, "No offense intended." No offense taken, Dan, but not because you didn't intend it; I feel to see how your insults can be intended to do anything but insult. I don't take offense at your insults because I stopped long ago expecting people on the Usenet to be able to discuss things rationally. I keep hoping, but I no longer expect my hopes to be fulfilled. -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec10.055351.13221@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: < <<< Let's deal in some facts, if you please. < << Yes, let's. But let's deal with all of the facts, not just the ones << that are convenient for you, OK? < <Well, while we're setting rules, let's not make unilateral decisions on <just what is important about posting software to comp.sources.unix, OK? Who other than you is doing so? <<< What's *wrong* with you people? *Two* "fixes" a week aren't <<< sufficient? Are you addicted to a constant flow of free code, or <<< what? < << Are you really trying to claim that an average calculation over the << entire life of comp.sources.unix (with Rich moderating it) is a valid << indication of the actual *current* status of the newsgroup? That's << completely ridiculous. < <Well, my site's undergone a hardware upgrade this year, but the last <article count I saw for comp.sources.unix was 501, so at least that many <postings have hit the group. That doesn't at all look to me like the <signs of an idle moderator. What's your point? It's not clear that that 501 represents current activity in the group. >And, strangely enough, there's an article <currently online in the group for each day of this site's expire time. <Looks like he's just been _pouring_ sources out, to me. Take the trouble to look at those articles, and you'll see that they constitute only one or two packages. This is a trickle, not a flood. << First of all, we've been discussing the chronological (as opposed to << qualitative -- I don't think anyone here has challenged Rich's ability << to do a very good job on the submissions that *do* get posted) << consistency of Rich's moderation. < <As was noted by another poster in response to the article with the graph, <what we see is that the group's output has _always_ been bunchy. Then maybe we've *always* had a problem! <Impatient authors have and have always had a multitude of alternate <publication paths. Some have used them. My site was using trn off an ftp <site before it came out in c.s.u. It is a fair assumption that authors <who wait patiently for their software to be posted do so because they <are willing to trade time for the imprimateur of quality Rich's <excellent moderation gives the software published through c.s.u. Who cares about Rich's "imprimateur [_sic_] of quality"? (By the way, while you have that twelve-year-old daughter of yours there helping you with arithmetic, ask her to help you spell `imprimatur'.) Their sources are good regardless of what Rich says; I doubt very many are trying to get prestige by having Rich's name associated with their code. (And for those who are, we can create a `comp.sources.imprimatur.rich'.) <Since the main value of the group is its reputation, and that depends <entirely on the diligence and probity of the moderator, proposals to go <to a multi-moderator system or to replace the moderator are quite beside <the point. I can think of perhaps three other people on the net I'd <trust with the job, and none of them have stepped forward to offer <assistance. Last I checked, this wasn't your net. And as for "reputation", well, there you go again with your "unilateral decisions on just what is important about posting software to comp.sources.unix". I read the group for sources, not for "reputation". <Bingo! We have a scarce and irreplaceable resource, and aside from the <false to fact character assassination postings here, he is also being <abused by overuse. And how valuable this resource will be if we all leave him alone and nothing is posted! After all, its entire value rests in that "imprimatur", huh? And could you kindly point out a few of those "false to fact character assassination postings"? (Get that twelve-year-old to help you with hyphens, too.) << Third, as I have pointed out in another message, it is ludicrous to << try to claim two packages are posted to c.s.u per week, when six of << the last twelve months have seen *no packages at all* posted to the << newsgroup, or at least, not according to what's in the archives on << uunet.uu.net. < <You slept through your statistics classes, or you took a pass when <common sense was handed out? That is the biggest set of logical <contradictions yet posted in this pile of newbie nattering. If there are <sixteen packages posted every other month, or eight per month, the <average is the same. You're the one who needs to take a statistics class. (Maybe that twelve-year- old can tutor you.) Sixteen packages in one burst every two months is not the same as two packages per week. By your argument, Rich might as well just queue it all up and say "There will be 10,400 packages a century from now." --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_.
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec10.214342.25051@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > In article <12102:Dec1020:45:5990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > |> In article <1990Dec10.073955.28681@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > |> > It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this > |> > newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion. [ ... ] > I hadn't > suggested it before because I don't really believe it's very likely. [ ... ] > I agree that it is likely that Rich has not read the complaints. If he has > read them, I agree that it is not likely that they have had a major effect on > his rate of posting to c.s.u. So why my accusations that you simply don't believe? Yes, it's conceivable that complaints cause postings to appear in comp.sources.unix. So what? If the packages are appearing, then they're appearing. I don't care what the ``causes'' are. > I've been steamed about c.s.u ever since I sent him my undel2 package and > waited six months for it to get posted. Well, golly gee. My first submission to a professional mathematical journal was in limbo for two years. This is called industry practice. You say that some postings go through Rich without change (other than repackaging). Guess what? A huge number of math papers are published without change (other than repackaging). > What exactly do you consider <1990Dec3.064608.22544@athena.mit.edu>, Dan? A rather vacuous article that draws no reliable statistical conclusions. The nearly incomprehensible graph (Tufte strongly recommends a table for similar situations) doesn't justify your complaints. > I find it amusing that you call my complaints "idiotic" and tell me that I'm > "whining" and tell me that I'm posting "drivel," and then say, "No offense > intended." No offense taken, Dan, but not because you didn't intend it; I > feel to see how your insults can be intended to do anything but insult. I didn't call your complaints idiotic. I do consider your recent postings here to be full of whining and drivel, and I've given you several reasons for my opinion; I don't mean to insult you by giving an honest evaluation. (That's what ``no offense intended'' means.) ---Dan
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/13/90)
In article <1537:Dec1108:31:5790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: |> So why my accusations that you simply don't believe? As I have already explained, Dan, in the portion of my article you did not bother to quote, I made no accusations. I simply stated possibilities. When trying to analyze a situation, it is usually a good idea to put all possibilities, even the ones that you think are less probable, on the table in order to have a full picture of what's going on. Here's what I said in the original article: > It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this >newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion. It is >entirely possible that the activity of the past week will taper out as it has >many times in the past, and that we will then see several months with no >activity at all, despite many items waiting to be posted. Your assertiong >that "this week has been active" does nothing whatsoever to belie the claim >that the TREND has been toward more idle gaps and less activity. This paragraph was posted in response to a paragraph in which Kent Paul Dolan claimed that since several messages have been posted in the last week or so, Rich must be "_pouring_ sources out." I was trying to point out that such a generalization based only on the number of postings in the past week, without considering any other external factors, is not very wise, and I did so by pointing out just *one* factor that might have affected the number of postings. |> Yes, it's conceivable that complaints cause postings to appear in |> comp.sources.unix. So what? If the packages are appearing, then they're |> appearing. I don't care what the ``causes'' are. If complaints are what causes postings to appear, then it logically follows that in order for postings to continue to appear regularly, we have to continue complaining. Perhaps you consider that an acceptable solution; I do not. I do not think that people should have to complain before a moderator does his job. If you disagree with that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. |> Well, golly gee. My first submission to a professional mathematical |> journal was in limbo for two years. This is called industry practice. Are you equating comp.sources.unix with a professional mathematical journal, Dan? Gee, that one rates pretty high up there on the Gilly scale; I'd say it's at least a centigilly. If you think that six months between submission and posting is a reasonable time lag for comp.sources.unix, then once again, we will have to agree to disagree, because I do not, for two reasons. First of all, because the time lag has been a lot smaller in the past, and second of all, because I believe that it is possible to reduce the time lag now. |> You say that some postings go through Rich without change (other than |> repackaging). Guess what? A huge number of math papers are published |> without change (other than repackaging). Once again, I'm afraid I just don't think the parallel between a printed mathematics journal and comp.sources.unix is strong enough to make any comparison worthwhile. Among other things, you usually have to pay to get a journal. Editors of journals are usually paid, nor volunteer workers. Editors of journals can usually get fired if they aren't doing their jobs. My point, which you seem to have either missed or ignored, was in response to the incredible job that Rich must be doing since so many packages that go through comp.sources.unix have had major portions rewritten by him. Well, I've been watching comp.sources.unix for a long time, and I don't recall seeing *any* packages with "major portions rewritten by him." Maybe I just missed them. But until the person who made that claim puts up some statistics, I will not accept it as any sort of evidence of what a wonderful job Rich does as moderator. Mind you, that doesn't mean I don't think he does a good job. By and large, I think he does a very good job. When he gets around to it. |> > What exactly do you consider <1990Dec3.064608.22544@athena.mit.edu>, Dan? |> |> A rather vacuous article that draws no reliable statistical conclusions. |> The nearly incomprehensible graph (Tufte strongly recommends a table for |> similar situations) doesn't justify your complaints. Well, gee, Dan, maybe the fact that the graph was "nearly incomprehensible" is why I presented a table of data right above the graph, so that people who thought the graph was a bit difficult to read could read the data directly or use it to produce their own graphs? It took me ten minutes to produce that graph once I had the data; I suspect that anyone reading this conversation who's really interested can find a tool at his/her site to produce a more readable (i.e. not text-based :-) grap relatively quickly. If not, they can read the raw data. It seems to me, Dan, that you're just searching for ways to criticize what I've posted; in particular, your claims that I have not posted "statistics" seem to be quite specious, especially since I've posted more statistics than anyone else involved in this discussion. I took the time to go through all of the archives and figure out what's been happening for the past few years; no one else did. When someone said that only two people have been complaining, I took the time to go through the entire conversation and verify, objectively, that this was not the case. You accuse my data of drawing "no reliable statistical conclusions," and yet you defend the conclusions of someone who posts, "There have been an average of two packages per week by adding together all of the packages on uunet and dividing by the number of weeks, so there must not be a flow problem?" That's laughable, Dan. You say that the graph I included doesn't justify my complaints. I say that it does. My first complaint was that output to the newsgroup has been very irregular. The graph shows that this is, indeed, the case. Now you may say, "But it's always been irregular," tho which I respond, "Then perhaps it's always been a problem?" Whether or not it's always been irregular does not invalidate the complaint or make it impossible for the data/graph to justify the complain. My second complaint is that the delays between submssion and posting are getting longer. As I've pointed out several times, the only person who can verify this statistically is Rich, since he's the only person who knows how many and how often submissions are received. However, I've posted several lines of reasoning which I think show that it is likely that this complaint is correct. I don't recall seeing you respond to any of them, so I'll post them again for your benefit: (1) The increasing number of complaints from people who have seen submitted sources and not had them posted after long delays would seem to imply that there are more people having this problem, which would seem to imply that either the delays are getting longer or the number of packages that are delayed is increasing, or both. (2) The net has been growing, and with it, the number of programmers has been growing. The source traffic to almost every newsgroup on the net has been increasing. It stands to reason, then, that the source submission rate to c.s.u has been increasing. Despite that, the posting rate to c.s.u has *not* been increasing significantly. If the submission rate goes up but the posting rate does not, then there must be longer delays. |> I didn't call your complaints idiotic. I do consider your recent |> postings here to be full of whining and drivel, and I've given you |> several reasons for my opinion; I don't mean to insult you by giving an |> honest evaluation. (That's what ``no offense intended'' means.) I have, over and over again, attempted to explain, calmly and using reason, why I think there is a problem. I have not called for a lynch mob to hang Rich. I have not attempted to win the discussion using emotionalism, or arguments appealing to the status quo, or arguments appealing to which netters are "newbies" and which are "not." I therefore fail to see what I have said that could be classified as "whining." Or is any opinion which disagrees with yours "whining?" You *know* that there's no problem in c.s.u, so if someone disagrees with you and thinks that there is a problem, they must be "whining," is that it? -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) (12/13/90)
chrisb@risky.Convergent.COM (Chris Bertin) writes: >If Rich Salz posted an article saying >something like 'I am overworked and I won't be able to look at any of the >c.s.u submissions for at least n weeks', most people would understand. And >that should not take that much of his time... Exactly. Studies have shown that users get antsy when they push a key and nothing happens. On the other hand, GUIs that provide a 'wristwatch' or 'timer' icon let the users know that a response is forthcoming but not immediately. They can shuffle papers or sharpen a pencil. -- :;:;:;:;:;:;: Daniel A. Hartung : Disclaimer: \|/ \|/ \|/ dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us : My opinions are married to me, | | | Birch Grove Software : forsaking all others. -- :;:;:;:;:;:;: Daniel A. Hartung :-------------------------- \Y/ \Y/ \Y/ ----------------------: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us | | | Birch Grove Software :--------------------------
beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) (12/14/90)
In article <8195@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <27662@cs.yale.edu>, by horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne): > >Opinion... > >I suggest all you complainers go crawl back under your rocks! I have kept my mouth shut until now. But this is fucking outragous. I think Rich has done a marvelous job in the past. The problem now is not the amount of traffic in c.s.u but the length of time it takes for things to get through. More than one author has given up on c.s.u and posted to a.s. I think it is time for Rich to either step down as moderator or to find some setup to speed up the process. More than one person has volunteered to take over the job. Others have suggested group moderation. I think it is time to try something. I have not said anything before now because I feel that Rich must do whatever he sees fit. I only hope that the situation improves before c.s.u dies completely. > >Irkedly, >[and yes, that turned into a flame!] real cute >-- >John G Dobnick (JGD2) -- It is easier to build a | Brian Beattie (703)471-7552 secure system than it is | 11525 Hickory Cluster, Reston, VA. 22090 to build a correct system.| M. Gasser | ...uunet!visenix!beattie
sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec9.225810.10838@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >In article <1842@utodaycom>, sean@utodaycom (Sean Fulton) writes: >|> Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of >|> students at Yale; the Rich Salz defenders are mostly professionals who >|> take time away from making money to contribute to Usenet. >|> >|> Does this seem strange to anyone? > > It really, really annoys me when people state untruths which are so easily >proven false. Sean, I can't accuse you of lying, because a person can only >lie if he knows that he is not telling the truth, and I don't know if you >realize that the statement above just isn't true. I will therefore simply >show that it isn't true and let the rest of the net draw its own conclusions. > [ bunch of statistics deleted ] >However, even several such misinterpretations >would not change the fact that there are quite a few more than "a couple >students at Yale" asking for change in comp.sources.unix. > [ More stuff deleted ] > Let's try to discuss things reasonably, people? > My comment had little to do with people reasonably discussing the need for change. My comment was sparked more by a series of nasty, somewhat belittling notes about a person who *has* contributed a great deal to the net. What I *said*, was that the people attacking this individual seemed to be primarily students, and somewhat impatient ones at that, while those defending Rich's record seemed to be professionals with a few more years on the job. True there were nasty comments from non-students as well, but it appeared at the time that the personal attacks were started by a couple of people who happened to be students. By the way, I would not classify people who are asking for a change in the moderation of a group as ``bashers'' of the moderator as you did. ``For'' and ``Against'' seem like suitable categories, but to lump them in with people who make childish attacks on a moderator is really unfair. I mean, I volunteered in to help out. Does that classify *me* as a basher? -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) (12/18/90)
I've been following this and related threads off and on for a while now. As background, what I "know" about the issues is what I've read here and what I've observed here and elsewhere on the net. Further, I've served as a volunteer in an all-volunteer organization and so I'm rather sensitive to those who bitch about how it's being done and especially so to those who *only* bitch. Keep the above statements in mind as I say that my sympathies lie, largely, with Rich Salz. Yes, I read that some of you are willing to help or to take over moderation of the group. Most of the antis, however, (no I didn't collect any statistics) seem to be in the category of *only* bitching. My observation is that it is, indeed, *most* -- those whose postings can truly be called moderator bashing. Someone else posted an article (I've neither the time nor the inclination to collect names and reference numbers and article numbers and--you'll all have to settle for anonymous attribution) suggesting that there is no scarcity of other groups to which to submit source if c.s.u is too slow. Yet someone else mentioned that he posted to c.s.u because it was the most appropriate group to which to post his source. There seem to be those who claim that Rich goes to great trouble to check submissions to assure their quality. And there are those who minimize this or who claim it's counterproductive or... Some even claim, as I recall, that he checks for nasties such as trojan horses. Clearly, I have no way of knowing if Rich does any of this. I do know that some good stuff has come through c.s.u. With this in mind, how about this (probably naive) suggestion: Since there are some who feel that c.s.u is worth the wait and others who claim that they want to get their source posted and to hell with the checking but (some) want an appropriate group, how about a new group, say alt.sources.unix, with quick turnaround and not checking for that contingent and leave c.s.u alone for those who accept it the way it is? Alternatively, perhaps the existing c.s.u could become comp.sources.unix.tested and another subgroup called comp.sources.unix.quick could be formed for those who prefer speed. I'm sure that many reasons will be posted to show why this suggestion is all wet. Maybe so but I think it is as useful a suggestion as many, if not most, of the postings about the matter. Each contingent can have the kind of group they want to post to and *lots* of net bandwidth will be saved until someone thinks of something else to bitch about. :)/2 Best, Charlie Sorsby "I'm the NRA!" crs@lanl.gov sorsby@pprg.unm.edu
jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (12/18/90)
Clarification: From article <1990Dec10.073955.28681@athena.mit.edu>, by jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens): > > Getting back to the subject at hand, I did have some doubt about Dobnick's > calculations, mainly because I don't think he took into account the fact that > there's a huge block of sources right in the earliest part of the > comp.sources.unix archives that were *not* posted while Rich was moderator. > Although I'm not certain that Dobnick counted those in his calculations, I > believe that he did; hence, the validity of the statistics were questionable > in my mind; hence the use of the word "purports." I took pains to start my count after Rich assumed the moderatorship of c.s.u. The exact date was a little fuzzy, (I based it on the documented moderator in the "index" files in the uunet archives), so I may be off by a month. I believe I was accurate to within a single month, however. I also didn't count (most) items that were obviously "bug fix" patches to programs, *and* that were labelled as such. (One or two exceptions may exist. I *did* consider a new version to be an independent posting, though.) I hope this clarifies things a bit. -- John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (12/18/90)
As quoted from <9193@lanl.gov> by crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby): +--------------- | Alternatively, perhaps the existing c.s.u could become | comp.sources.unix.tested and another subgroup called | comp.sources.unix.quick could be formed for those who prefer | speed. +--------------- It already exists; it's called comp.sources.misc. And it should soon be back in business again. ++Brandon, ex-moderator of c.s.misc -- 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
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (12/20/90)
In response to the message from Sean Fulton to which this message is a response, I sent Sean an E-mail message, since I didn't think that what I had to say to him was of significant interest to the other participants in this discussion. However, the responses which I received from him were so enlightening and informative that I would like to share them (with his permission) with the rest of the people in this discussion. I provide the conversation below, without comment. The mail from Sean doesn't really say much that's relevant to the discussion of Rich Salz and comp.sources.unix, but it says quite a bit about Mr. Fulton. Incidentally, the profanity in Mr. Fulton's message has been censored slightly to protect the more innocent of the readers of this newsgroup :-). -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 16:50:30 -0500 From: Jonathan I. Kamens <jik@pit-manager.MIT.EDU> To: sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) Cc: jik@pit-manager.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: The responsibilities of volunteers In article <1850@utoday.com> you write: |> My comment had little to do with people reasonably discussing the need |> for change. My comment was sparked more by a series of nasty, somewhat |> belittling notes about a person who *has* contributed a great deal to |> the net. |> |> What I *said*, was that the people attacking this individual seemed to |> be primarily students, and somewhat impatient ones at that, while |> those defending Rich's record seemed to be professionals with a few |> more years on the job. True there were nasty comments from |> non-students as well, but it appeared at the time that the personal |> attacks were started by a couple of people who happened to be |> students. |> |> By the way, I would not classify people who are asking for a change in |> the moderation of a group as ``bashers'' of the moderator as you did. |> ``For'' and ``Against'' seem like suitable categories, but to lump |> them in with people who make childish attacks on a moderator is really |> unfair. I mean, I volunteered in to help out. Does that |> classify *me* as a basher? Come on, Sean, you know as well as I do that what you *didn't* say in your message is as relevant as what you *said*. Let me examine both of those. What you said, exactly, was: |> Let me get this straight: The Rich Salz bashers are a couple of |> students at Yale; the Rich Salz defenders are mostly professionals who |> take time away from making money to contribute to Usenet. |> |> Does this seem strange to anyone? Now, first of all, it is *you* who made the classification into two groups, "Rich Salz bashers" and "Rich Salz defenders." You explained nothing about what you meant by those classifications. It seems to me that the logical conclusion to draw are that the "bashers" are those people who have said bad things about Rich OR ABOUT COMP.SOURCES.UNIX, and the "defenders" are those people who have defended against such accusations. Your use of "the" above, i.e. "*the* Rich Salz bashers" and "*the* Rich Salz defenders" implies a division into two groups with no groups besides those two. Otherwise, you would have said "most of," or perhaps you would have left out the "the"s. But you didn't. My interpretation, and I suspect the interpretation of most other readers of your message was that you were "drawing a line," so to speak, and putting people on one side of it or the other. You can try to squirm out of it with quaint rationalizations for what you said, but the fact remains that what you *said* sounds like you are doing exactly what I attacked in my response. And, in any case, no, I do not think it's true that most of the people who are attacking Rich are students. I think I disproved that rather convincingly in my response. I also think that your comments about students and professionals is a Red Herring; I notice that you did not respond to the portion of my message which pointed that out. Students contribute as much to the net as "professionals;" furthermore, students take time out from getting better grades in their classes in order to contribute to the Usenet. I find your attitudes about students vs. professionals on the Usenet to be offensive and childish. -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: The responsibilities of volunteers To: uunet!pit-manager.MIT.EDU!jik@uunet.UU.NET (Jonathan I. Kamens) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 7:33:45 EST From: Sean Fulton <sean@utoday.com> In-Reply-To: <9012162150.AA15349@pit-manager.MIT.EDU>; from "Jonathan I. Kamens" at Dec 16, 90 4:50 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0] Listen you boring little f**k, don't *ever* presume to tell me what I wrote or didn't write. Tell me about your perverted interpretations, but don't try to tell me what I said. > [included the text of the entire message from me, with no comments] -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 22:23:48 -0500 From: "Jonathan I. Kamens" <jik@pit-manager.MIT.EDU> Sender: jik@pit-manager.MIT.EDU To: sean@utoday.com In-Reply-To: Sean Fulton's message of Mon, 17 Dec 90 7:33:45 EST <9012170733.AA02736@utoday.com> Subject: The responsibilities of volunteers Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 7:33:45 EST From: Sean Fulton <sean@utoday.com> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0] Listen you boring little fuck, don't *ever* presume to tell me what I wrote or didn't write. Tell me about your perverted interpretations, but don't try to tell me what I said. Two things: 1) You might want to mention to your boss that I have just decided never to subscribe to "Unix Today!" because of your most recent mail message. I don't patronize businesses whose employees are as rude to me as this. 2) Do you mind if I quote your last message on the net? It's just so informative that I want everyone to be able to see it. Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: The responsibilities of volunteers To: uunet!pit-manager.MIT.EDU!jik@uunet.UU.NET (Jonathan I. Kamens) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 9:09:29 EST From: Sean Fulton <sean@utoday.com> In-Reply-To: <9012190323.AA22053@pit-manager.MIT.EDU>; from "Jonathan I. Kamens" at Dec 18, 90 10:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0] Let me elaborate a bit on my last message. 1) UNIX Today! has a controlled circulation of 75,000, and a waiting list of about 6,000. To subscribe, you need to be *qualified* by our circulation department, which I doubt you have. Even if you had been and decided not to subscribe, your action would only free a space for someone on our waiting list. 2) Please learn to use the word ``patronize'' correctly. Try a dictionary, that should help. 3) You are free to post whatever you like, however, net etiquette would prohibit you from posting obscenities to many of the groups in which your rantings currently appear. If you were'nt such a baby, you'd know that. 4) You're just an insecure ego looking for a cause to fight. Your last mail tells me this. You have nothing productive to offer, you fight simply for the thrill of battle. > [included the text of the entire message from me, with no comments] -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: The responsibilities of volunteers To: uunet!pit-manager.MIT.EDU!jik@uunet.UU.NET (Jonathan I. Kamens) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 8:53:39 EST From: Sean Fulton <sean@utoday.com> In-Reply-To: <9012190323.AA22053@pit-manager.MIT.EDU>; from "Jonathan I. Kamens" at Dec 18, 90 10:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0] Jon, Grow up. Idle threats are meaningless. > [included the same message which was included above, once again with no > comments] -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 > [included the same message again (yes, again, twice in the same mail > message), once again with no comments] -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (12/21/90)
In article <1990Dec20.000421.26816@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >However, the responses which I received from him were so >enlightening and informative that I would like to share them (with his >permission) with the rest of the people in this discussion. Why? What makes you think that we would be interested in a conversation between you and someone who may have been angered by your postings/mail? It happens all the time. It is boring. >... but it says quite a bit about Mr. Fulton. So? Your postings say a lot about you too! Ah, but your implication is that Sean's postings and private mail says something presumably negative about him and perhaps even about the organization Sean works for. On the other hand, who knows, if you were to run a poll, you may find that other people think differently. Oh, what was it you were really trying to say? oz --- Where the stream runneth smoothest, | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca the water is deepest. - John Lyly | UUCP: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz
dan@kfw.COM (Dan Mick) (12/21/90)
In article <1990Dec20.000421.26816@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
[ about Sean Fulton being an asshole ]
Gee, Sean, that's impressive. Did *you* look up patronize, for instance?
That's what it means. And you're a writer by trade, a wordsmith.
What a pathetic idiot it is, he who brings up irrelevant flames in
his professional area of specialty, *and gets them wrong*.
You've told me more about Sean Fulton than I've ever imagined, Jonathan...