merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (06/04/87)
Bob Webber (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu) has volunteered to
maintain an unmoderated sources mailing list. Bob, thank you.
I'm signing up, please add me. The address from you would be
"merlin%hqda-ai@mimsy.umd.edu". I'll be sending you my first
article in about a week, when I get back from vacation.
It is indeed unfortunate that we are now left with no
unmoderated sources groups. Bob has shown us a new view on
getting unmoderated sources back -- go through the new group
creation process.
Send your votes for comp.sources.unmod to Bob (or me, I'll
pass them on). Better yet, sign up for Bob's mailing list. Your
action in support of the Source Liberation Front is more valuable
than your vote for it.
--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900
UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai@seismo.css.govjpn@teddy.UUCP (06/08/87)
>In my opinion, all this talk of the need for non-moderated sources group >is ridiculous. It is NOT ridiculous. Oh, I am all in favor of moderation, WHEN IT WORKS. Hell, I was the one who first suggested and implemented the moderated source group mod.sources! Let's face it, though. Moderation has NOT WORKED OUT. It is difficult to get sources to a moderator (mail is NOT that reliable), and the delay caused by a moderator is just a pain in the A**. comp.sources.unix (formerly mod.sources) has had major blackouts (months at a time). These were not due to a lack of submissions, either. The current moderator (Rich Salz) is off the net - I don't know when he will be back. I'm sure that there are good excuses: but it points out the flaws in a (volunteer) moderated system. The new comp.source.misc moderator, Brandon Allbery, has not had any of these problems, yet. But when I hear that he is going to start trying out all sources before submitting them, well, it is the same old problem starting up again. It is NOT just a matter of filtering out non-source submissions. Also, a single source submission just took a week to be posted! (fortune). I keep hearing about sources that are "going to be posted" - and I don't SEE them till months later! Oh, a moderated sources group is worthwhile for production-quality submissions that don't suffer from month-long publishing delays: but I don't think that covers all the useful source code I have recieved from the net! I think that a non-moderated source newsgroup is appropriate because 1. Mailing to the moderater is not required, and 2. The Moderator himself is not required (i.e. no blackouts when he goes on vacation, or has a heavy workload). Let's hear it for comp.sources.unmod!
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (06/10/87)
As quoted from <390@hqda-ai.UUCP> by merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes): +--------------- | It is indeed unfortunate that we are now left with no | unmoderated sources groups. Bob has shown us a new view on | getting unmoderated sources back -- go through the new group | creation process. | | Send your votes for comp.sources.unmod to Bob (or me, I'll | pass them on). Better yet, sign up for Bob's mailing list. Your | action in support of the Source Liberation Front is more valuable | than your vote for it. +--------------- Were I to unmoderate comp.sources.misc right now, the ensuing flamage would be more voluminous that the flamage about it being moderated. I *do* remember the constant flames about garbage in net.sources, guys! The ensuing flames would also be more polite. (Cf. <48@bigtuna.UUCP>.) People, we (meaning the moderators and the backbone) can't please everyone. An unmoderated sources newsgroup will be 90% discussion & flames, same as net.sources was for the entire time that I subscribed to it (3 years now). And the flames will, as in the case of net.sources, be about how there is so much noise in the newsgroup and how *it should be moderated* to get rid of the noise. (Educate the users? C'mon! Net.sources tried to educate the users for *how* *long*?) -- BTW -- I have stopped testing stuff to comp.sources.misc, since getting stuff out FAST is more important than getting it out RIGHT in this case. Don't bother to flame me about it; I'm not listening, as it's d*mned certain that some vocal minority will yell no matter what is done with comp.sources.misc, including if it is unmoderated. ++Brandon -- Copyright (C) 1987 Brandon S. Allbery. Redistribution permitted only if the redistributor permits further redistribution. ---- Moderator for comp.sources.misc ---- Brandon S. Allbery {decvax,cbosgd}!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery aXcess Company {ames,mit-eddie,talcott}!necntc!ncoast!allbery 6615 Center St. #A1-105 necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.HARVARD.EDU Mentor, OH 44060-4101 +01 216 974 9210 (also eddie.MIT.EDU)
sob@academ.UUCP (06/13/87)
In article <256@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >In article <142@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: >> I do not object to an un-moderated list. I think that is a wonderful ideal. >> (I spelled it that way on purpose.) Unfortunately, past experience >> indicates that an un-moderated sources list contains many, MANY non-sources >> postings. A moderated list does not. If the unmoderated sources group >> can be JUST sources, I will support it 110%! > >Why do you care what appears on the list? Perhaps you are obsessed with >the word sources. I do think that a group named "comp.sources" should contain source code for computers...I guess that is obsessive. Pity me. :-) As for the mailing list, people other than myself have commented that doing mass mailings of large source files is a bigger waste of resources than a "sources" newsgroup full of non-source postings. Since they have already explained the rational for this, I will not bother to repeat it. >It seems to me that an unmoderated group contains whatever >people choose to post to it. If people who post stuff that is inappropriate >are ignored on the list and responded to by mail, the stuff goes away. History does not bear this out with respect to "net.sources". The stuff (non-source) postings did not go away. >By far, most of the non-source on the old list was replies. Refusing >to allow people to reply to a sources message would easily clean this up. >(and it would certainly be more useful than not letting people crosspost >to comp.sources.d because it is a sources group). This strikes me a bug on the news software... This is fixable. I suppose you have already dropped a line to rick@seismo.css.gov about this bug. If not, you should. >> Well, actually the correct list is the so-called "List of Lists" maintained >> by the NIC at SRI (ftp the files netinfo:interest-groups* from sri-nic.arpa). >Somehow I think that news.lists is more relevant to Usenet people. On >what basis would you say the other is more `correct'? UNIX-SOURCES is an INTERNET list, not a news group. The authoratative list for INTERNET lists is the LIST of LIST. With more usage of NNTP, the structure of this may change. (see other articles for some of the current problems) >> I think it might be a tad bit egotistical to say that other programmers that >> don't agree with you about moderated sources vs. unmoderated sources are >> incapable of analyzing other problems. I also find it interesting that >Well, anyone that posts on Usenet after reading the cost information >is not exactly non-egotistical. The philosophy of a programmer is >often reflected in the strategies chosen for implementing various tasks. >Of course, the philosophy will have little to do with the skill with which >the strategy is implemented, but it may have something to do with how you >perceive the usefulness of what was done. I find this ego<->"programming philosophy" link interesting. I agree that some programmers have aspects of ego in the "philosophy". My personal feeling is that the better programmers are those that don't let ego get in the way of producing better code which may be derived from collaboration with others. To that end, I think sources groups are great. Or, perhaps we should have a "developmental" sources group. This was my personal ideal of what net.sources should have been. Someone posts sources and requests people to look at them and feed back [by mail, or in a sources discussion group]. This is quite a different function from comp.sources.unix which [in my opinion] is for mature sources. >> discussion in the sources group somehow "humanizes" C-code. I'd like to >> hear more on that :-). > >I guess the smile means you really wouldn't. Not true. I just thought the anthropromorphic reference was humorous. >----- (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) -- Stan uucp:{killer,rice,hoptoad}!academ!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) (06/16/87)
Here is a radical (?) idea. Whenever non-sources gets posted to the new unmoderated comp.sources.misc - someone Cancels the article? If this is done enough times, eventually people will get the message. -- Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP) -- "The difference between a Buddha and an ordinary man is that one knows the difference and the other does not."
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (06/17/87)
In <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> barnett@ge-crd.arpa (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > Whenever non-sources gets posted to the new unmoderated comp.sources.misc - > someone Cancels the article? If this is done enough times, eventually > people will get the message. I seem to remember something like this going on a while ago -- somebody took it upon themselves to send out cancel messages for articles that s/he thought were innapropriate (don't remember the details; was it net.sources?) Once people figured out what was going on, the uproar was loud and angry. Preventing postings is one thing, inflicting random carnage to already posted stuff (remember the article trasher?) is another thing altogether. Besides, it's not likely that the poster of a message which later gets cancled will even realize it. I rarely go back and look at stuff I've posted (after reading it the first time to make sure it came out as I anticipated). If somebody cancled this article for example, it would take a few days for the cmsg to get back here and I'd probably never know it happened at all. Not much educational value in that. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (06/18/87)
taylor@hplabs.HP.COM (Dave Taylor) wrote in news.groups: >...the correct solution is to modify the software to be more aware >of groups and their intent ... > is this: a B)ug report? a R)equest for Software? a C)riticism? >... I quoted as little as I needed; people who haven't read the original really should, as I wanted to quote everything... Generalizing this, a hook should be put into the posting programs so that they look at (say) the active file, and submit the article to inews based on the answers. There is already precedent for this - postings to net.jokes asks if the article should be rotated. Putting a filename in the active file next to the newsgroup name would be up to the site admin, so control moves down to a lower level instead of being imbedded into inews and/or the news posting programs. > Anarchy rules! Let the PEOPLE decide!!! Followups to news.software.b (or should that be news.software.c? :-)) ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (06/23/87)
In article <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>, barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > Here is a radical (?) idea. Whenever non-sources gets posted to the > new unmoderated comp.sources.misc - someone Cancels the article? If > this is done enough times, eventually people will get the message. I think this is a very bad idea. Newgroup/rmgroup wars are bad enough, but an intelligent and careful news admin can usually avoid getting burnt too badly. If we get post/cancel wars going there won't be much left of usenet! The only case I can see where it is acceptable for someone other than the poster to cancel an article is that I would find it reasonable for a moderated group moderator to cancel an article with a faked Approved: header in that group (cf. "richard"). der Mouse (mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)