kurt@hi.UUCP (Kurt Zeilenga) (05/05/87)
With all this renaming going on I have lost track of where users are to post misc. sources without going thru a moderator. I looked in the latest greatest "newsgroups" posting from spaf and noticed there is no appropriate group. No comp.sources, comp.sources.misc is moderated. Or, did we decide to do force moderation on sources and binaries (did we? did we? I hope so). Anyways, I have aliases net.sources to be comp.sources until I get the word from the net.gods. -- Kurt Zeilenga (zeilenga@hc.dspo.gov) I want my talk.flame! "So long, Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb..."
billw@wolf.UUCP (05/05/87)
Yes, all sources groups are moderated. There was quite an uproar about this
a while ago, I am quite surprised you missed it.
--
Bill Wisner
..{sdcsvax,ihnp4}!jack!wolf!billw
--
You had mail, but the superuser read it and deleted it.marms@sandia.UUCP (Mike Arms) (05/06/87)
In article <332@wolf.UUCP> billw@wolf.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: >Yes, all sources groups are moderated. There was quite an uproar about this >a while ago, I am quite surprised you missed it. I, too, have been disturbed that the unmoderated net.sources group was being replaced by the moderated comp.sources.misc group. As has been pointed out, the moderator of the misc sources group will often not be able to execute the packages and even do a rudimentary test for functionality, completeness, or detection of "trojan horses". So what do we get with this moderated misc sources group? One positive aspect is that we only get code and maybe some bug fixes. We don't get those stupid "request for Part n of m that didn't get to my part of the net" or "will somebody please send me the sources to Hack|Rogue|UltraRogue|Empire| Larn|Elm|Ispell|... as nauseum"! Our site likes to keep source archives, so eliminating this noise is a plus. On the other hand, we get none of the other usual benefits of moderation while accepting the normal delays involved in going thru a moderator. Wading thru all of the chaff in net.sources was made worthwhile by the gems that could sometimes be found there. Often authors would post short utilities or early releases of large systems (UNaXcess). Also, if the misc sources group was unmoderated, we could get those code postings out of the system groups such as comp.sys.ibm.pc. I would like voice support for changing comp.sources.misc from moderated to unmoderated (sorry Brandon). I welcome all discussion of this topic, pro or con. I do feel this discussion should be public rather than e-mail. Thank you for your consideration of this topic. -- Mike Arms uucp: ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!marms
woods@hao.UUCP (05/07/87)
In article <237@sandia.UUCP> marms@sandia.UUCP (Mike Arms) writes: >So what do we get with this moderated misc sources group? One positive >aspect is that we only get code and maybe some bug fixes. We don't get >those stupid "request for Part n of m that didn't get to my part of the net" This is, as far as I know, the ONLY reason. Seems like a pretty good one to me. This way the SOURCES group contains SOURCES, not discussion. We (the entire net) have pleaded over and over again for people to refrain from posting non-sources to the source group, to no avail. Moderation is the only answer to this problem. >On the other hand, we get none of the other usual benefits of moderation >while accepting the normal delays involved in going thru a moderator. If you want those "other benefits", you can use Rich Salz's group, comp.sources.unix. This group is NOT intended to replace that one. Since the moderator is NOT going to spend a lot of time making sure that the sources work, the "delays" in comp.sources should be minimal. --Greg -- UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu
twb@hoqax.UUCP (BEATTIE) (05/08/87)
In article <237@sandia.UUCP>, marms@sandia.UUCP (Mike Arms) writes: : In article <332@wolf.UUCP> billw@wolf.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: : :Yes, all sources groups are moderated. There was quite an uproar about this : :a while ago, I am quite surprised you missed it. : : I would like voice support for changing comp.sources.misc from moderated : to unmoderated (sorry Brandon). : Mike Arms : uucp: ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!marms 1. I didn't see any discussion of this change. 2. Why can't we have a moderated and an unmoderated group? 3. Unmoderated source code posting are going to happen, please let them be collected in one place. Tom.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (05/09/87)
In article <237@sandia.UUCP> marms@sandia.UUCP (Mike Arms) writes: >In article <332@wolf.UUCP> billw@wolf.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: >>Yes, all sources groups are moderated. There was quite an uproar about this >>a while ago, I am quite surprised you missed it. > > >I, too, have been disturbed that the unmoderated net.sources group was >being replaced by the moderated comp.sources.misc group. As has been >pointed out, the moderator of the misc sources group will often not be >able to execute the packages and even do a rudimentary test for functionality, >completeness, or detection of "trojan horses". > >So what do we get with this moderated misc sources group? One positive >aspect is that we only get code and maybe some bug fixes. We don't get >those stupid "request for Part n of m that didn't get to my part of the net" > >On the other hand, we get none of the other usual benefits of moderation >while accepting the normal delays involved in going thru a moderator. I would like to throw my support behind moderation. However I am also concerned with the possible delays in postings due to moderation. But, there seems to be a possible solution. How about multiple moderators. ******** The stated principles of moderation for comp.sources.misc is simply to divert anything other sources to sources.d, sources.bugs or sources.wanted as appropriate. Given this, lets get a number of moderators scattered about the net. Hopefully so that almost everyone is no more than one or two short and reliable hops away from a moderator. This would give people more confidence in being able to quickly get their sources onto the net. Heck, maybe Eugene Miya could sponsor a contest in comp.ai.digest to get an expert system developed to do the job :-) -- Stuart Lynne ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (05/10/87)
> I would like voice support for changing comp.sources.misc from moderated > to unmoderated (sorry Brandon)... Here's a radical suggestion: how about waiting a couple of months to find out whether the new order of things is really all that bad? -- "If you want PL/I, you know Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology where to find it." -- DMR {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (05/12/87)
As quoted from <237@sandia.UUCP> by marms@sandia.UUCP (Mike Arms): +--------------- | I, too, have been disturbed that the unmoderated net.sources group was | being replaced by the moderated comp.sources.misc group. As has been | pointed out, the moderator of the misc sources group will often not be | able to execute the packages and even do a rudimentary test for functionality, | completeness, or detection of "trojan horses". +--------------- Note that the packages which need this belong elsewhere. I am making arrange- ments to get a C compiler other than Mix C, but I can't test VMS sources. (The solution for both is separate source groups, really. The moderator for a VMS source group ought to be on a Eunice site.) I *can* and *will* test Un*x sources. +--------------- | On the other hand, we get none of the other usual benefits of moderation | while accepting the normal delays involved in going thru a moderator. | Wading thru all of the chaff in net.sources was made worthwhile by the | gems that could sometimes be found there. Often authors would post short | utilities or early releases of large systems (UNaXcess). Also, if the | misc sources group was unmoderated, we could get those code postings | out of the system groups such as comp.sys.ibm.pc. +--------------- I find it very interesting that you mention UNaXcess...! (Almost contra- dictory to your posting.) Note that these kinds of things WILL be accepted and WILL be tested. Again, the "no testing" was directed at MS-DOS and VMS sources. (Of course, if someone wants to donate me a MicroVAX II running VMS, I won't say no....) (Anti-VMS flamers stick it; the two really can't be compared, they are intended for different purposes.) +--------------- | I would like voice support for changing comp.sources.misc from moderated | to unmoderated (sorry Brandon). I welcome all discussion of this topic, | pro or con. I do feel this discussion should be public rather than e-mail. | Thank you for your consideration of this topic. +--------------- I originally got into this when we tried to set up a moderated MS-DOS sources group (which fell through, as usual). If someone will set this up and someone will set up a VMS sources group, then comp.sources.misc will be guaranteed all the advantages of moderation (within reason; only a Sun can test the Sun morse code program, would this be a reason to un- moderate a sources group on seismo?). Alternatively, someone at a local VMS site could give me a login so I can test the VMS stuff, and I can get the C compiler for MS-DOS. ++Brando (moderator of comp.sources.misc) -- Copyright (C) 1987 Brandon S. Allbery -- you can redistribute only if your recipients can. Brandon S. Allbery {decvax,cbatt,cbosgd}!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery Tridelta Industries {ames,mit-eddie,talcott}!necntc!ncoast!allbery 7350 Corporate Blvd. necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.HARVARD.EDU Mentor, OH 44060 +01 216 255 1080 (also eddie.MIT.EDU)
nerd@percival.UUCP (05/12/87)
In article <696@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >But, there seems to be a possible solution. > How about multiple moderators. > ******** In principle I like the idea, in reality though I beleive this would lead to several articles ending up posted multiple times due to people/mailers sending a submision to more than one moderator. This could be solved by networking the moderators, but the time overhead would destroy any and all advantages to be gotten from multiple moderators. If I missed a major point in your posting, let me know, heck, I'm as bad a twit as any, worse than most. -michael -- If my employer knew my opinions he would probably look for another engineer. Michael Galassi, Frye Electronics, Tigard, OR ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,seismo}!tektronix!reed!percival!nerd
cc_is@bath63.UUCP (05/15/87)
Multiple moderators are a good idea. Why should we in Europe pay to send our submissions across the 'pond', just to have them returned in the news. comp.sources.misc is moderated (I understand) just to remove the noise, and not to apply any standards. (I think this is good). -- Mr I. W. J. Sparry Phone: +44 225 826826 x 5983 University of Bath JANET: cc_is@UK.AC.BATH.UX63 Bath BA2 7AY UUCP: seismo!mcvax!ukc!bath63!cc_is (bath63.UUCP) England ARPA: cc_is%ux63.bath.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa
jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) (05/16/87)
Perhaps I have missed something here. When net.sources was changed to comp.sources.misc, I thought it was clearly stated that the moderation would consist only of shunting non-source postings into the appropriate groups. I am 100% in favor of this, for reasons which should be obvious. Now, things have started to change, and I find the following: > Quoted from allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery): > > I *can* and *will* test Un*x sources. At this point I object, for several reasons: - Unix sources are already being tested, very admirably, by Rich Saltz - If the idea is not to do as complete testing as Rich does, then I would say that half-hearted testing is of no more value than no testing at all. Anyone who has, in the past, taken source code from an unmoderated group should have done so with the knowledge that it needs thorough testing before general use. Taking source code from a semi-moderated group is the same - it doesn't gain you anything. - A major part of the objection to moderation of this groups has been the potential for delays. I am willing to accept the delay inherent in the original idea of filtering out non-source postings, because it will save me a lot of time when I read the group. I do not have the same feeling about delays for testing. - There are people in this world, some of them quite talented, who will not post to a moderated sources group. We might be able to convince them that filtering non-source is not *really* moderated, but tested? What are we supposed to be gaining here, anyway? Why make a half-hearted duplicate of comp.sources.unix, by testing Un*x sources and passing every- thing else through? A few days ago, I started seeing articles that said several sites were going to continue carrying and distributing net.sources. I thought at the time that this was a silly thing to do; if in fact the moderation is being extended to include testing, I would have to say that continuing net.sources is a good idea after all. jw ...!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!paninfo!jw
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (05/18/87)
In article <2500@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > I *can* and *will* test Un*x sources. {stuff deleted} > Note that these kinds of things WILL be accepted and WILL be tested. Again, > the "no testing" was directed at MS-DOS and VMS sources. I was under the impression that the purpose of moderating what used to be an unmoderated group was to filter out the non-source postings. Now, we're being told that comp.sources.misc postings will be tested, whenever Brandon has machines that can do it. We have a group, and a moderator, where this is done. We call them (I think, I'm losing track) "comp.sources.unix" and "Rich Salz", and sometimes some other names. We should not duplicate this. I wasn't happy about seeing a moderator coming to net.sources, but I was willing to go along since it wouldn't really add much delay, or take out any of the quick-and-dirty stuff. Now, we're told that postings of Unix sources will be delayed, and subjected to testing. [FLAME ON] If I wanted that, I would have posted to comp.sources.unix to start with! One of these groups deserves an 'rmgroup' control message. Now, which one shall I hit? [FLAME OFF. Boy, that felt good. Don't take it too seriously.] This is a needless duplication of effort. Let's just stick with the filter-non-source-postings business. That was much less controversial than this is going to be. How 'bout it, Brandon? -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (05/31/87)
In article <8011@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) quotes: >> I would like voice support for changing comp.sources.misc from >> moderated to unmoderated (sorry Brandon)... and writes: > Here's a radical suggestion: how about waiting a couple of months to > find out whether the new order of things is really all that bad? Except that experience has shown that if you give anything a couple of months to get established it is *much* harder to change it. It is much easier to make things change one way instead of another than it is to make things change rather than stay the way they are. der Mouse (mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)