greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/30/85)
The votes are in: 15 yes, 1 no regarding the following: (ME) >I suggest the creation of a net.sources.d. Some people suggested a similiar newsgroup for other net.sources newsgroups, including the mac group. I'd suggest letting the mac people decide for themselves. Some of the older news programs have no choice about archiving all net.source.* groups. Get the updated programs. >Additionally, the followup line in a net.sources article should >be forced to be either net.sources.bugs, or net.sources.d, unless >the posting in response is by the author themself. Additionally, it was suggested that there be someway of enforcing that an original posting only have source in it. Some mentioned mechanical methods, but that seems sorta flakey. I suggest an additional question in the news software when posting to net.sources: Is this source code? [n] If the answer is 'no' then pop it over to net.sources.d True, we'll get some twits asking for a report on the entire Xinu package (not a bad idea anyway), but it should drop WAY down. Okay...I did the easy part (taking the vote)...could one of the net.gods create the group? And what about the updates to the programs? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I saw _Lassie_. It took me four shows to figure out why the hairy kid never spoke. I mean, he could roll over and all that, but did that deserve a series?"
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/02/85)
There may well be a need for this group, but I have some difficulty with seeing 15 votes, given the number of people on the net, as being an overwhelming call for such a group! It appears that most people just don't care. Can we have a bit more discussion on this before the creates go ahead? Thanks much. --Lauren--
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (08/03/85)
Ok. Maybe creating net.sources.d isn't the BEST way to go. (BTW,
I was one of the 15 who voted FOR). See, the problem is that by
common use, net.sources has become what we want net.sources.d to BE.
It might be better to create a net.sources.x where x is a number of things.
Like, vms, unix, ibmpc, etc. And recognize the common usage as defining
the meaning for the group, and redefine net.sources as DISCUSSION of
various kinds regarding the postings in net.sources subgroups. This
could include your bug reports, your requests for missing sources,
or your quests for new sources.
Or, in a similar vein, ALL source postings can be sent to mod.sources.
(This is already happening to a degree). And, net.sources could continue
becoming net.sources.d.
The only problem I have with that is my experiences as of a few months ago.
At that time this local branch of the net was arranged differently.
Our site was the far out leaf feeding off people in Cincinnatti.
But, after watching the usage, Cincinatti people decided it would be better
if we fed off Columbus and they fed off of us. UNTIL THIS HAPPENED
WE RECEIVED NOTHING FROM MOD.ANYTHING.
I wonder if this happens to other sites?
--
--- David Herron
--- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA
--- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david
--- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!daviditkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (08/03/85)
In article <366@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >The votes are in: 15 yes, 1 no regarding the following: >>I suggest the creation of a net.sources.d. >I suggest >an additional question in the news software when posting to net.sources: > >Is this source code? [n] > >If the answer is 'no' then pop it over to net.sources.d > >Okay...I did the easy part (taking the vote)...could one >of the net.gods create the group? And what about the >updates to the programs? Before any action is taken on this prayer, could we have some discussion of net.sources vs. mod.sources? I have submitted to and extracted from mod.sources recently. Not only does this provide some coordination and consistency, but the moderator (thank you John) maintains a listing/index of all programs/articles submitted. He also provides a facility for catching up on things you've missed. I think that's a pretty significant service. Isn't it time for the demise of net.sources rather than its expansion? Discussion I've read about other groups (most notably from Gene and Chuq and Mark) implies that when a moderated newsgroup is created and actually serves the purpose for which it was created, it is probably time to rmgroup the unmoderated group. I'm in favor of separating the discussion and patches from the sources, but John does this admirably in mod.sources. Let's not expand where consolidation should be the order of the day. -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * Just part of the stock at "Uncle Bene's Farm" * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!itkin ***
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (08/04/85)
itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) <295@luke.UUCP>: >>>I suggest the creation of a net.sources.d. >>I suggest >>an additional question in the news software when posting to net.sources: >> >>Is this source code? [n] >> >>If the answer is 'no' then pop it over to net.sources.d >> >>Okay...I did the easy part (taking the vote)...could one >>of the net.gods create the group? And what about the >>updates to the programs? > > Before any action is taken on this prayer, could we have some > discussion of net.sources vs. mod.sources? I have submitted to and > > Isn't it time for the demise of net.sources rather than its > expansion? > > I'm in favor of separating the discussion and patches from the > sources, but John does this admirably in mod.sources. Let's not > expand where consolidation should be the order of the day. This is a whole 'nother issue--whether to kill net.sources. I would suggest that, while a STRONG campaign be waged to keep as many sources as possible in mod.sources, that net.sources not be killed till it has actually petered out, and that for the time being there be a net.sources.d to hasten the petering out process. Maybe some net.holy site(s) would have the power to shunt non source code articles in net.sources over to net.sources.d (either manually or on a criterion of 50 lines of non-header text or less, accompanied by a cancel of the original article). Maybe there would be a way of having net.sources fun- nel into the mod.sources moderator who would archive them, post in mod.sources, then cancel the originals or replace with a message of where they are? -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the | at&t computer systems division | s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | | "go for it" | Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy -------------------------------- or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levy
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (08/05/85)
In article <295@luke.UUCP> itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) writes: >In article <366@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >>Okay...I did the easy part (taking the vote)...could one >>of the net.gods create the group? And what about the >>updates to the programs? > > Before any action is taken on this prayer, could we have some > discussion of net.sources vs. mod.sources? While mod.sources is working well and seems like the solution here, and John is doing an excellent job, he has indicated that he and his machine would both be overloaded if they were to take on the task of handling everything that goes into net.sources today. However, this idea does merit further exploration. For example, if there were 3 or 4 moderators for mod.sources, and a poster was urged to contact their nearest moderator to arrange posting. Each poster could keep their separate archives, but cooperate and maintain a cross-listed index. If we did this, would there ben any reason to keep net.sources around? If we do decide to try it out, any volunteers to be one of the moderators? Mark Horton
andrew@stc.UUCP (Andrew Macpherson) (08/06/85)
In article <295@luke.UUCP> itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) writes: > Before any action is taken on this prayer, could we have some > discussion of net.sources vs. mod.sources? > > Isn't it time for the demise of net.sources rather than its > expansion? > I'm afraid there is a rather crass reason for keeping net.sources, at least on this side of the atlantic. >> M O N E Y <<. You see if I mail my latest snafu-merge prog off for inclusion in mod.sources I have to pay ( or at least STC in my case ) for the costs of the inter-continental mail. On the other hand net.sources is "free" if I'm going to share my 'masterwork', in as much as the costs of trans-atlantic transfers are shared out betwixt all potential beneficiaries in europe. Please don't get me wrong, I support whole-heartedly the principle of mod.sources, and were the economics of the situation any different would encourage all to use this exellent distribution service. I do commend it to everyone on the US/Canadian portion of the net, but cannot recomend paying more than one's own phone bill for sending off the might-be-useful. -- Regards, Andrew Macpherson. <andrew@stc.UUCP> {creed, datlog, idec, iclbra, iclkid, root44, stl, ukc}!stc!andrew
john@genrad.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (08/07/85)
In article <1366@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >While mod.sources is working well and seems like the solution here, >and John is doing an excellent job, he has indicated that he and his >machine would both be overloaded if they were to take on the task of >handling everything that goes into net.sources today. Well, the reason this is true is because the reliablility of USENET is so low, that I spend more time sending lost articles to people than any other moderation task. >However, this idea does merit further exploration. For example, if >there were 3 or 4 moderators for mod.sources, and a poster was urged >to contact their nearest moderator to arrange posting. Each poster >could keep their separate archives, but cooperate and maintain a >cross-listed index. I think perhaps this is unworkable. There needs to be a single point of origin to provide for a complete article index, if nothing else. However, it would make my job MUCH easier if there were multiple sites that kept the mod.sources archive, and would handle retrieval requests! >If we do decide to try it out, any volunteers to be one of the moderators? John P. Nelson (decvax!genrad!john) [moderator, mod.sources]
itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (08/07/85)
In article <1366@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >For example, if >there were 3 or 4 moderators for mod.sources, and a poster was urged >to contact their nearest moderator to arrange posting. Each poster >could keep their separate archives, but cooperate and maintain a >cross-listed index. > >If we did this, would there ben any reason to keep net.sources around? Since Mark responded to my question, it's pretty obvious that I don't think there is such a need. I recognize, however, that it might serve as a good forum for discussion of PD software. >If we do decide to try it out, any volunteers to be one of the moderators? Yes, I would. The only caveat I would post is that I don't have access to any BSD systems, and won't have access to SVR2 for a month or two. But I'd love to. Just think - first look at new software! -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * Just part of the stock at "Uncle Bene's Farm" * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!itkin ***
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (08/08/85)
In article <532@stc-b.stc.UUCP> andrew@stc.UUCP (Andrew Macpherson) writes: >I'm afraid there is a rather crass reason for keeping net.sources, at >least on this side of the atlantic. >> M O N E Y <<. You see if I >mail my latest snafu-merge prog off for inclusion in mod.sources I have >to pay ( or at least STC in my case ) for the costs of the >inter-continental mail. Would it be possible to get a mod.sources moderator on the Europe side? I think there are a couple of other groups that have dual moderators, so technically it must be possible. This would reduce the money problem to sending mail to a European site, which must be cheaper. -- =Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA) "You don't get to choose how you're going to die. Or when. You can only decide how you're going to live." Joan Baez