aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) (08/18/85)
So far I've had roughly 20 responses to the idea for net.software projects,
all positive. (If not skeptical, but only time will tell.)
Several valid points were raised, which leads me to modify my proposal
as follows.
1. Make it ...projects.software -- for later expansion.
2. Make it moderated -- this will restrict followups to only
those that make sense, others will be directed to the
'managers' of projects (those who sent them originally).
Regarding the point that not everyone knows how to handle
being a manager, and coordinating N interested parties:
If this is the case, I would encourage that person to
send all the replies to the moderator with a request for
help.
(So this makes it mod.projects.software.)
3. The legality of all this. As I see it, the group would be
no worse than the classified ads. What people discuss
over mail once they get together is their own matter.
Given all this, and that I am going on vacation until 9/5, I will
gather replies until I return. Then, if there appears to be sufficient
interest and no significant problems, I will create the group
mod.projects.software. I'll also act as moderator, unless anyone has
any other nominees.
Andrew
--
Andrew Burt
University of Denver
Department of Math and Computer Science
UUCP: {hao!udenva, nbires}!isis!aburt
CSNet: aburt@UDENVER (NOT udenva, as above...)
ARPA: aburt%udenver.csnet@csnet-relay.arpalauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/20/85)
Once again, I'd like to emphasize that 20 or 30 responses does not a group make! I also don't appreciate this, "Gee, if I think there's enough interest I'll just create the group" attitude. I still don't see any valid reason for creating a new group for this subject. If you have a project to propose, simply propose it in an appropriate subject group for that type of project! Nothing could be simpler. We don't need a new group or a new moderator for this purpose. The people interested in a particular topic will see the message in existing groups and respond as appropriate. People aren't forced to wade through proposals for topics in which they have no interest. I get the distinct feeling that some people like creating groups because of the feeling of "power" it gives them, even when there's no need for such a group. This is one of the most obvious cases I can think of where existing groups could TRIVIALLY handle project ideas/requests and would serve the purpose far better than creating separate group(s) for those occasional messages. Why force people interested in C projects to wade through messages about other projects, for example? Let the messages that propose projects appear in the existing specific groups. It'll be more specific and better for everyone in the long run. In fact, using existing groups makes sure that more interested people will see the messages of interest. Many persons will probably be unwilling to subscribe to a "projects" group because of various topics discussed in which they have no interest. On the other hand, people already read the specific topic groups of interest to them and would see project ideas posted in those specific groups. WE DON'T NEED ANY NEW GROUPS FOR THIS PURPOSE! --Lauren--
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (08/23/85)
I think mod.projects.software is a good idea, or at least, worth trying
(though I don't expect to be involved with it myself). I have sent a Yes
vote to Andrew Burt, who proposed it.
However, I think it ought to be mod.projects. The usual criterion for
new groups applies: we don't need the subgroup until the traffic justifies it.
At least one past attempt to create a group and subgroup together,
net.astro.expert, has been less than a success. I propose to amend
Andrew's proposal by suggesting the creation of mod.projects only.
(We'd have to create that anyway; a subgroup has to have a parent.)
Since I am proposing only an amendment, please MAIL your remarks on this
TO ANDREW, not me. I presume you wouldn't have anything to say unless you
were going to mail him a Yes or No anyway; so what I'm trying to do is to
keep the voting in one place. (I haven't asked his permission to post
this, but he said he was going away now. I hope everybody will think I
am being reasonable.)
I am:
{ decvax | ihnp4 | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb
also via { hplabs | amd | ... } !pesnta!lsuc!msb
Mark Brader and uw-beaver!utcsri!lsuc!msb
and Andrew's addresses are:
UUCP: {hao!udenva, nbires}!isis!aburt
CSNet: aburt@UDENVER (NOT udenva, as above...)
ARPA: aburt%udenver.csnet@csnet-relay.arpaspaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (08/26/85)
I agree completely with Lauren on this one -- we DO NOT need a new group
for this. Use the existing groups or start a mailing list. If you start
generating lots of volume, then suggest a new group, but not before.
--
Gene "4 months and counting" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf