alvitar@madhat.UUCP (Phil Harbison) (06/11/87)
I support the moderated source newsgroups; however, it is obvious that
many news readers are unhappy with the way comp.sources.misc operates.
Hopefully there is a way to salvage the benefits of a moderated news-
group without giving up the benefits of the old net.sources. A
moderated comp.sources.misc newsgroup has the advantage of eliminating
the following types of messages.
[1] please {mail,repost} part I of J
[2] please {add,remove} me {to,from} the list
[3] can someone send me the source to {rogue,empire,hack,etc.}
[4] XXX doesn't compile on ZZZ machine
[5] looking for a program that does ...
[6] please stop posting [1] through [5] to *.sources
As the administrator of a site that tries to archive *.sources, I find I
spend alot of time sifting through the archive eliminating articles such
as these. Having a moderator perform this task for the entire net would
save alot of human and communications resources. Since I pay the cost
to get comp.sources (via UUNET) at this site, I can certainly appreciate
any savings in communications costs.
What I do find disturbing are the rules by which comp.sources.misc is
moderated. I think what most news readers want is a good supply of
sources, without the six classes of articles listed above, posted to the
net with as little delay as possible. I would like to suggest that the
charter of comp.sources.misc be changed to the following rules.
Rule 1 - Reject or redirect anything that is not source.
The six classes of articles listed above should be redirected to
comp.sources.{bugs,wanted,d}. All binaries should be redirected to
comp.binaries.*. Create the appropriate comp.binaries.* newsgroup if
necessary.
Rule 2 - Post anything that looks like source code immediately.
I appreciate the extra effort expended by the comp.sources moderators in
testing code and adding makefiles, but that doesn't seem to be what the
majority wants in comp.sources.misc. If the moderator finds a bug or
develops a makefile, a patch or followup can be posted later. About the
only thing the moderator should do is re-shar large articles into
small pieces.
I welcome discussion of amendments or alternatives to the rules I have
suggested (follow-ups are directed to news.groups). I hope we can reach
a compromise soon and put an end to the anarchy that has developed in
response to the current state of the source groups. Is there a standard
procedure for changing the charter of a newsgroup?
--
Live: Phil Harbison
USPS: 3409 Grassfort Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805-5421
Uucp: {clyde,uunet}!madhat!alvitar
Bell: 205-881-4317