notes@isucs1.UUCP (11/08/85)
[Bug?] Ken Arnold: > The only solution is to eliminate net.sources.* in favor of mod.sources.* Jim Budler: >The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >'evaluates' the posting. Dan Levy: [paraphrased]: "The moderator does not evaluate, but just post notices and keeps track of the sources/bug-fixes/follow-ups mailing to those requesting them." I think that mod.sources* is a 'good thing.' In par- ticular, I like the fact that mod.sources* does not have any discussion, requests for sources, miscellaneous comments, or duplicate postings. I don't like the idea of the moderator keeping a 'tally sheet' of what's available, and then post- ing JUST the description telling about the sources. I think the only time the description ALONE should be posted is when the sources have limited interest (admittedly a decision left up to the moderator.) An example might be: "Hey, this program will compile ONLY on an Altos 486, having 256K, and running Xenix 1.0." This example would, of course, interest anyone with an Altos still running Xenix 1.0; but it has very-limited [no?] interest to a site running 4.2 on a VAX. In my opinion, the other useful function the moderator preforms is the archiving of the sources received. How may times have you seen a posting requesting parts of a source that did not make it to site XXX.UUCP? How about someone who 'missed a posting' and would like another copy as his/hers has gone into /dev/null? Most of these facts in favor of mod.sources* are well known, but the bottom line is moderators should post SOURCES to his/her newsgroup, not 'just the descriptions.' And yes, I would be willing to become a moderator of a source group. /\ Dave Shaver -=*=- Located at Iowa State University -- Ames, IA \/ UUCP: {okstate||umn-cs||csu-cs}!isucs1!shaver CSNET: shaver@iowa-state