emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) (06/27/91)
Here is a description of two new newsgroups that fit under the general realm of comp.archives, which I would like to get some discussion about. I think that they'd both be a good addition to the net, in terms of providing a home for some information that otherwise gets lost and for easing the burden of moderation of comp.archives. comp.archives.lists -- for lists, catalogs, descriptions of collections, or any other collective information. The prototypical posting would be Jon Granrose's (late) Anonymous FTP list; various other postings, like the list of Amiga FTP sites, would be welcome here. I'd hope that regular monthly site list information postings would be cross-posted into this group. Not moderated, but posters are expected to adhere to standards of good behavior, and discussion should directed to more appropriate lists. comp.archives.reviews -- for comparative reviews, analysis, critical discussion, and additional information about packages which have appeared in comp.archives or in any of the *.sources.* newsgroups. Some of this traffic appears in comp.archives right now; it would be funnelled off to the new group. Moderation? Well, I don't want to moderate it, but I'd be happiest if this group ended up being archival quality; that might mean some sort of post-moderation with weekly lists of keeper reviews posted to comp.archives.lists. Needs discussion. Creating both of these groups would change the charter of comp.archives somewhat, to read comp.archives -- for announcement or updates of software and resources available on the internet. Postings are culled from other usenet newsgroups, there is no mechanism for submitting articles per se. comp.archives will be limited to primary source materials, i.e. postings from the authors or maintainers of the packages only, or from the keepers of archive sites; secondary source materials (reviews, analysis, criticism) are more properly found in comp.archives.reviews. comp.archives will also extract README files and other supporting documentation from ftp'able materials and post those as appropriate or as the opportunity arises from a comp.archives.reviews notice. comp.archives has been enriched substantially by the availability of comp.archives.admin, a group which handles meta-discussions about archive stuff rather well. It's missing a channel for materials of relatively short lifetimes which have frequent updates (comp.archives.lists) and a separation of announcements from critique (comp.archives.reviews). I'd note that comp.archives.reviews can be thought of as a competitor to comp.sources.d; for that reason, perhaps, it should be moderated. If the review cycle can be made timely enough I'd argue for moderation, so long as things don't sit in moderator's queues for weeks. --Ed Edward Vielmetti, moderator, comp.archives; vp research MSEN Inc. emv@msen.com