david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (02/20/85)
Ok. It is the evening of the 19'th. I'm going to announce some *preliminary* results on my outburst of last week. The results are pretty much a tie at the moment. There are 3 votes for and 2 against. But both the against votes have good reasoning. Since I've gotten some flames about about this .... What happened was I had just gotten through wading through a net.sources that had about 10 new entries for the day, none of which were sources! Plus, there was one which seemed to be claiming to be Empire sources, but was actually just another inane request for sources. So I wrote a quick note to blow off a little steam. I'm doing this a day early because I'm extending the discussion. (See the letter at the end of all this). Without further ado, here are the summarized results: ------------------------- >From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) My immediate response was to mail back a message saying "please don't, because I don't want to archive the stuff". I then realized I could probably come up with a mechanism to avoid archiving net.sources.d by using the ! notation. Assuming it is easy to avoid archiving net.sources.d, how about renaming net.wanted.sources to net.sources.wanted? [Names can be changed, net.sources.d was just the first thing that came to mind. The idea of saying "!net.sources.d" is so obvious I wonder why nobody thought of it before? But I no longer consider the archivers' complaint as serious. -- David] ... I think net.sources.{d,wanted} would be swell. ------------------------- >From: utah-cs!thomas@utah-gr.UTAH-CS.ARPA (Spencer W. Thomas) In article <764@ukma.UUCP> you write: >From then, please discuss sources in net.sources.d!!!!! Sources should be discussed in net.usoft, an already existing group. [Hmmm....this is interesting. I looked up the "definition" for this group and found the following: Universal (public domain) software packages. Now I am confused. ... This sounds *very* much like what net.sources is for. Can someone explain the differences to me? -- David] -------------------------- >From: t4test!chip (Chip Rosenthal) please....go for it! i support net.sources.d so strongly that you can count this message as three of four votes if you'd like. -------------------------- >From: vax135!akgua!gatech!spaf The idea for a net.sources.d has been discussed before, and turned down. We have a net.sources.bugs for discussion of problems with posted sources, and a net.wanted.source for people wanting repostings. What other kind of discussion can you think of which would generate enough traffic to warrant its own newsgroup? [Nothing. net.wanted.sources is probably the *wrong* name... -- David] Furthermore, the general feeling has been that no group should be created as a subgroup of net.sources unless it contains information that should be archived forever at sites that archive net.sources. Therefore, net.sources.d is probably not a good name. [See the "hokey" message above. -- David] For what do you think such a group is needed? [Well. It should be obvious that net.sources gets abused. And it's not all from people on Arpa-net who don't have access to Usenet. Some of these messages come from Usenet people who refuse to read their net.announce.newusers stuff. This is a *real* problem in a lot of groups. But how do you fix it without drastically changing the nature of the net? -- David] -------------------------- >From: seismo!mcvax!enea!chalmers!uddeborg (G|ran Uddeborg) In article <764@ukma.UUCP> you write: >Path: chalmers!enea!mcvax!seismo!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!cbosgd!ukma!david >Subject: Alright. I'm gonna create net.sources.d >Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 22:03:05 GMT >Posted: Tue Feb 12 22:03:05 1985 >Date-Received: Sat, 16-Feb-85 04:31:08 GMT > >Unless someone can give me a good reason not to......By.... >February, Wednesday 20, 1985. Received on Saturday 16 => read by most people here on Monday 18. This gives a bit too little response time. [Ok. You convinced me. I'll give everyone another week? Or is two weeks better? Or whenever there is a clear consensus anyway. -- David] I think it is a good idea to create the group. But as a principle I think you should allow a little more time for discussion. ------------------------ Lets hear some more discussion, please? -- -:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:- -:-David Herron; -:-ARPA-> "ukma!david"@ANL-MCS or david%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa -:-ARPA-> Or even anlams!ukma!david@ucbvax.arpa -:-UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,research}!anlams!ukma!david -:-UUCP-> {mcvax!qtlon,vax135,mddc}!qusavx!ukma!david -:-UUCP-> {A-Large-Portion-of-The-World}!cbosgd!ukma!david