dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (05/04/89)
How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an
incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading,
-- it gets posted in 24 to 48 hours
-- it is not tested, nor assigned a volume/issue number
-- no moderator's comments are added
-- if time permits I check to make sure it will extract, but
if 48 hours delay is approaching I skip this step too
-- the keywords field includes "rush"
The only purpose of moderation for such postings would be to keep
discussion out of comp.binaries.ibm.pc. (Experience suggests this
alone is of great benefit.)
Those who archive postings can skip archiving "rush" postings if they
so prefer.
We could try this for a while and see how much the signal/noise ratio
suffers.
Comments?
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
UUCP: ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesijxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) (05/04/89)
In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: In response to the recent noise about an unmoderated group RD writes: > How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an > incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading, [mucho deleto] To RD: I for one think you're doing a fine job. Don't go making work for yourself. If folks can't wait a few days while you recover from the latest lung fung or take a couple days rest, then let 'em run down to computerland and buy off the shelf :-). I think all this talk about things not being posted fast enough is just carping. I for one would rather wait a couple of days for a researched posting. RUSH would just give me another thing to wear out my "n" key on. -- _ /| The opinions here are my own, and even I don't agree with me :-) \'o.O' I am not an employee of LANL, I just use their computers. =(___)= I stole the .sig file, but I did not shoot no deputeeee. U Bill sez: AAAAK! PHHHT! jxdl@lanl.gov
ftrue@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Dr. Destruction) (05/05/89)
In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an >-- >Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> Yes, Rahul, I think this is a good idea. The disadvantages to an unmoderated group are prohibitive, while a fully moderated group (which isn't so bad, but the backlogs do get restricting as well) is perhaps too restrictive. I vote we give it a try. Good suggestion. (actually...from the subject header I thought this got cross-posted from rec.music.misc for a moment...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick True ftrue@hmcvax.BITNET ftrue@jarthur.claremont.edu Harvey Mudd College Life before coffee is no life for me. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (05/05/89)
In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an >incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading, > > -- it gets posted in 24 to 48 hours > -- it is not tested, nor assigned a volume/issue number .... Rahul, I acknowledge you for going out of your way to keep your "customers" happy. Just the same, I advise you against doing this. First off, almost everyone will put "RUSH" in their subject heading. Secondly, the poster is not in a position to decide whether or not his/her posting is really a rush or not; egos are on the line here. Of course the world needs my program as soon as possible! The world will end if the world cannot play nethack this week!!!! Given that it costs to send all this drivel around, the least we can do is make sure it's quality drivel. :-) That means testing, archiving, etc. Now it may well be that circumstances exist that justify "rush" handling. I'd prefer to see someone else's judgment than the poster used to decide this (like the moderator's, perhaps). Another possibility to speed the workload: appoint "deputy testers", sort of assistant moderators. This might assist you at times where mundane things like work and school interfere with your real purpose in life, which is to moderate comp.binaries.ibm.pc. :-) -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Gopal) (05/05/89)
>In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an >incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading, > > -- it gets posted in 24 to 48 hours > -- it is not tested, nor assigned a volume/issue number I have a different suggestion. How about processing the programs that are in demand most ? The person who sends the program to the net also posts a note to c.b.i.p.d saying that such a program has been posted (with explanations of bug fixes etc.). People who cannot wait can send email to RD and RD can prioritize based on such demand. I understand this will be more work for RD but it is better than RUSHing .... May be RD can also post a backlog list bi-monthly showing current priority. Venu P. Gopal UUCP: att!ihuxy!vg55611 Internet: vg55611@ihuxy.att.com BITNET: com%"vg55611@ihuxy.att.com" or com%"vg55611%ihuxy@research.att.com" Silence those silent letters and save the world 500 million keystrokes a day.
burleigh@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (frank burleigh) (05/05/89)
In article <13097@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes: >In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In response to the recent noise about an unmoderated group RD >writes: >> How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an >> incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading, > >[mucho deleto] > >To RD: I for one think you're doing a fine job. Don't go making >work for yourself. If folks can't wait a few days while you I agree that RD does an excellent job, and RUSH hardly seems necessary -- though I don't have any principled opposition to it. The problem with RUSH is that someone will have to come up with a criterion separating RUSH postings from normal postings. This will certainly be difficult (games are RUSHed, apparently:-)). What will prevent posters from labelling their stuff for RUSH, besides some sort of shared understanding that it is a less desirable category? This will still beg the question of distinguishing RUSH from nonRUSH. -- Frank Burleigh burleigh@silver.bacs.indiana.edu USENET: ...rutgers!iuvax!silver!burleigh BITNET: BURLEIGH@IUBACS.BITNET Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405
feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) (05/05/89)
In article <3156@epimass.EPI.COM>, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: .> In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: .> >How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an .> >incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading, .> > .> Given that it costs to send all this drivel around, the least we can .> do is make sure it's quality drivel. :-) That means testing, archiving, .> etc. .> Hear, hear! .> Now it may well be that circumstances exist that justify "rush" handling. .> I'd prefer to see someone else's judgment than the poster used to decide .> this (like the moderator's, perhaps). .> Amen--go thou in peace, Rahul. Leave it alone. Those that are in such a rush can hook up with their neighborhood BBS. Forrest Gehrke
swh@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Steve Harrold) (05/05/89)
Re: Thde RUSH category Please don't rush into this mode of activity. Egos can indeed wait for proper screening of their breathless work. One exception I would propose, and it should be exercised solely at RD's discretion, is if a last minute "bugfix" or omitted file is submitted for an item that has already been released.
steve@eros.ame.arizona.edu (Steve Cannon) (05/05/89)
In article <13097@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes: >To RD: I for one think you're doing a fine job. .... I for one would >rather wait a couple of days for a researched posting. Absolutely! While, like any pc addict, I would like to see a continuous stream of postings, I am more concerned about not wasting my time on junk postings and like the idea of having an extra buffer zone between myself and trojan horses. I appreciate your (RD's) time and effort. Thanks! Steve Cannon <X> UUCP: ...{allegra,cmc12,hao!noao,att}!arizona!eros!steve AME Dept. <XXXXXXXX> Internet: eros!steve@ARIZONA.EDU University of Arizona <X> Bitnet: scannon@arizrvax Tucson, AZ 85721 <X> Phone: +1 602 621 6091
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (05/05/89)
In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an > incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading, > [description of how RUSH would be handled deleted} I, for one, would not like to see this done. I suspect that most of the submissions would be marked RUSH, which would defeat the purpose of marking them RUSH. I have been very happy with the way things have been going on c.b.i.p so far, and I don't see any need for a change. If it takes a few weeks more to get the programs, so what. I managed to survive this long without them. If you can't live without the latest version of NetHack or whatever, get it from a bulletin board. +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | Bob Sloane \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is | | Computer Center \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET / my opinion, not my | | University of Kansas\ AT&T: (913) 864-0444 / employer's. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
gep@shuxd.UUCP (Gary Pratt) (05/06/89)
The creation of a RUSH category would diminish the credibility of c.b.i.p in the following ways: - the reliability of the postings (bugs, copyrights, etc.) - increased bandwidth - blame for problems resulting from the above There are two major areas of contention right now - the speed at which binaries are posted and the order of posting (utilities vs. games, etc.) The moderator (thanks for your contribution, Rahul) should clearly define his intentions with regard to the above. If his intentions do not reflect the expectations of the majority, then volunteers who can do better should take one step forward. I personally appreciate the effort Rahul puts into this and know that I couldn't do better (although I would like to see a *couple* more games now and then :-). Gary ---- Gary E. Pratt | Internet: gep@shuxd.att.com AT&T Corporate Compensation Staff | UUCP: att!shuxd!gep 1 Speedwell Avenue Rm. 88E-208 | ARPANET: gep%shuxd@att.arpa Morristown, N.J. 07962-1954 | attmail: !gpratt (201) 898-2231 | coming soon: spotlite!gep
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (05/06/89)
In article <13097@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes:
=To RD: I for one think you're doing a fine job. Don't go making
=work for yourself. If folks can't wait a few days while you
=recover from the latest lung fung or take a couple days rest,
=then let 'em run down to computerland and buy off the shelf :-).
=I think all this talk about things not being posted fast enough
=is just carping. I for one would rather wait a couple of days
=for a researched posting. RUSH would just give me another thing
=to wear out my "n" key on.
I agree with Jerry 100%.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800jeffery@jsheese.FIDONET.ORG (Jeff Sheese) (05/06/89)
In an article of <5 May 89 17:36:39 GMT>, gep@shuxd.UUCP (Gary Pratt) writes: >There are two major areas of contention right now - the speed at which >binaries are posted and the order of posting (utilities vs. games, etc.) >The moderator (thanks for your contribution, Rahul) should clearly define >his intentions with regard to the above. If his intentions do not >reflect the expectations of the majority, then volunteers who can do better >should take one step forward. Here here! It seems to me that the majority of postings to c.b.i.p. are very useful utilities. For those that prefer to have an open forum for the slam-bam-thank-u-mam type of postings could set up a simple mailing list. Seriously, isn't that about as un-moderated as you can get? ;-) -- Jeff Sheese - via FidoNet node 1:109/116 UUCP: ...!netsys!jsheese!jeffery ARPA: jeffery@jsheese.FIDONET.ORG (I am sole owner. My opinions represent my company.) (Send all flames to null@jsheese.Fidonet.ORG)
paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) (05/06/89)
In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an >Comments? >Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> There are some perfectly good reasons for moderating this group. Adding a RUSH option circumvents the moderation and would subject all of us to the problems that caused us to set up moderation in the first place. No to RUSH. Yes to moderation. "Moderation in posting of binaries IS a virtue." -- Paul Homchick :UUCP {rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc. :Internet cgh!paul@manta.pha.pa.us 259 Radnor-Chester Rd, Suite 140 :MCI PHOMCHICK Radnor, PA 19087-5299 :GEnie HOMCHICK
simcha@kurz-ai.UUCP (Simcha Lerner) (05/09/89)
In article <3915@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> burleigh@silver.UUCP (frank burleigh) writes: >In article <13097@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes: >>In article <7090@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >>In response to the recent noise about an unmoderated group RD >>writes: >>> How does a RUSH category sound for comp.binaries.ibm.pc? If an >>> incoming submission is marked RUSH in the subject heading, >> >>[mucho deleto] >> >>To RD: I for one think you're doing a fine job. Don't go making >>work for yourself. If folks can't wait a few days while you > >I agree that RD does an excellent job, and RUSH hardly seems necessary >-- though I don't have any principled opposition to it. I too must agree that RD is doing a great job trying to maintain order for a bunch of anarchists. As stated above, the only thing that will happen with this proposal is that almost everyone will label their postings RUSH, and we will then be in an almost unmoderated situation. For those of you with short memories, back in the days when we were unmoderated, we came very close to being shut down and relegated to the alt. distribution. Much of the problem comes from people pre-announcing their postings in c.b.i.p.d, which causes everyone to start salivating and become quite impatient. Perhaps a little more discretion on the part of posters will make everyone a lot happier. simcha lerner harvard!humming!simcha harvard!kurz-ai!simcha <All opinions expressed are mine alone, but you're welcome to share them at no extra charge.>
rusty@cadnetix.COM (Rusty) (05/12/89)
In article <960@amethyst.math.arizona.edu> steve@eros.UUCP (Steve Cannon) writes: >In article <13097@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes: >>To RD: I for one think you're doing a fine job. .... I for one would >>rather wait a couple of days for a researched posting. > >I appreciate your (RD's) time and effort. Thanks! > I agree 100% (maybe even more :-). And I don't see the need for a RUSH category. ---------- Rusty Carruth UUCP:{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!rusty DOMAIN: rusty@cadnetix.com Daisy/Cadnetix Corp. (303) 444-8075\ 5775 Flatiron Pkwy. \ Boulder, Co 80301 Radio: N7IKQ 'home': P.O.B. 461 \ Lafayette, CO 80026