🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rteeterCs87JL.Cx0@netcom.com>, rteeter@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) writes:
>
>Gateway for Blues-l under discussion
>Posted to bit.admin on June 30
>
Despite the growing popularity of blues
>music, there is no newsgroup devoted to blues on any of the major
>hierarchies. 
>
This is a bad idea. While there is no newsgroup devoted to the blues now
an RFD for rec.music.bluenote.blues was submitted to new.groups just
a few days ago and is currently being discussed. 
The obvious place to gateway this mailing list is this newsgroup if it
passes.
I fail to see the desirability of having two major Usenet blues newsgroups,
one in bit and the other in rec.

                                                                  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Grobe  grobe@ins.infonet.net

Jonathan Grobe <grobe@ins.infonet.net> wrote:

>This is a bad idea. While there is no newsgroup devoted to the blues now
>an RFD for rec.music.bluenote.blues was submitted to new.groups just
>a few days ago and is currently being discussed. 

Well I suppose you're right but the best way to do this is have a rec.music.jazz
and rec.music.blues - the way most of the universe splits these two forms of 
music - with the r.m.blues newsgroup gatewayed to blues-l.  The reality, 
however, is that there wasn't support to change names in bluenote or to gateway
blues-l to the rec hierarchy in blues-l.  So we're stuck with the silly and
absurd name (IMHO) of r.m.bluenote.blues ungatewayed to blues-l.

>The obvious place to gateway this mailing list is this newsgroup if it
>passes.

I believe this was voted on in blues-l and touch off a very heated round of
debate.  The main objection was the ease with which posts could be made to a
rec newsgroup and it was unacceptable to have a moderator.  It was feared -
especially by those who's only access is via the list - the list would have to
endure endless posts from the casual news reader.  This is a very active list
with 80 to 120 messages per day.  The compromise was to set up a uni-dir 
connection via bit.listserv whereby (as I understand it) the group can be 
read by a news reader but posts have to be made via the listserver (or is it
that you simply have to be subscribed to the list?).  This is acceptable to 
those of us with access to usenet since most of us simply want to have a
better way of organizing the numerous posts while keeping the investment in
time, friendship, and contacts we've built in blues-l.

>I fail to see the desirability of having two major Usenet blues newsgroups,
>one in bit and the other in rec.

There may very well be enough support and interest to justify two groups.  We 
won't know until we try.  I think both should be set up to see which has more 
support.  A compromise could be reached in the future to consolidate the two 
groups.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Balcerzak                    /*       bill@gis.mces.msstate.edu
Extension GIS, Box 9642           /*       TEL: (601) 325-8321
Mississippi State, MS 39762       /*       FAX: (601) 325-7844

In article <2uvdi1$al6@insosf1.infonet.net>, grobe@ins.infonet.net (Jonathan Grobe) writes:
|> In article <rteeterCs87JL.Cx0@netcom.com>, rteeter@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) writes:
|> >
|> >Gateway for Blues-l under discussion
|> >Posted to bit.admin on June 30
|> >
|> Despite the growing popularity of blues
|> >music, there is no newsgroup devoted to blues on any of the major
|> >hierarchies. 
|> >
|> This is a bad idea. While there is no newsgroup devoted to the blues now
|> an RFD for rec.music.bluenote.blues was submitted to new.groups just
|> a few days ago and is currently being discussed. 
|> The obvious place to gateway this mailing list is this newsgroup if it
|> passes.
|> I fail to see the desirability of having two major Usenet blues newsgroups,
|> one in bit and the other in rec.

This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense at first, but it does.

If I understand correctly, bit.bluesl, or whatever it will be called, will 
be a mirror of the list.  You can read it from Usenet, but to post, you 
have to have signed on to the group (or send email to the listserver). 

There are a lot of people on the list who 1. like the list exactly as
it is, and 2., are very concerned that a two way gateway to the list
would result in lots of extraneous postings and would ruin the 
nature of the list. 

There is another group of people on the list who feel the traffic is
way to high and who want newsgroup access.  The compromise was to have
the one-way link.

The r.m.b.b RFD is completely independent of the bit.bluesl proposal.
Also, I'm pretty sure that no one is currently working of having the list 
gatewayed to r.m.b.b, and there *are* people actively working on both
group proposals.  I am also assuming that list gateway to 
rec.music.bluenote.blues would be two way.  If so, this would not be 
acceptable to a lot of people on the list.           

My suggestion is to let both groups go through.  That way, everyone
is happy.  Sure, it's not perfect, but so what.  I predict that once
the groups are created, over time the issue of two separate groups
will be resolved.  But as far as I'm concerned, that's another story.

----------------------------------
Warning: Not the views of BNR Inc.

	Just to clarify some points about the gateway proposal for
Blues-l.

	The name of the newsgroup would be bit.listserv.blues-l.

	It's not correct to say that blues gave birth to jazz, as I
implied.  The two forms of music evolved in the same time, place, and
culture, so perhaps they are fraternal twins.  That's for the 
historians to argue.
 
     The one-way link setup for mailist and newsgroup proved unsatisfactory
and dysfunctional in several respects.  So the bitnet administration came
up with a much better arrangement to achieve the same results.
 
        In a recent post regarding another RFD [see above], Jim McIntosh
explained the "list moderated newsgroup" concept this way:
 
     "What I do think is a fine idea are moderated newsgroups. You can     
either have some human be moderator to review of posts you might get     
from the Usenet side, or (even better) you have the posts sent to the     
list address. Then, if the piles of posts you fear (but most probably     
won't see) actually occur you always have the option of setting the     
list to 'Send= Private'. This will block posts from people who are not     
on the list, but with a nice message telling them why. This also     
allows your subscribers who prefer to read and post from news to set     
themselves to 'NOMAIL' and still be able to post from the newsgroup     
side."
 
        For BLUES-L, we are proposing the latter of Jim McIntosh's two
moderating options -- that is, the list would be the moderator for the
newsgroup. There would be no direct human moderator.  But since the LIST is
the moderator and the filters based on listserver settings, the Listowner
is ultimately in control of all message traffic.  This implements the basic
idea of a newsgroup which is a "mirror" of a list.

	Hope this clarifies things.

	Robert Teeter
	rteeter@netcom.com
        

	

I'd like to follow up with support for this gateway idea. Please read
these posts carefully if your reaction is "Why bother? We're talking
about creating r.m.bluenote.blues?"

There are two reasons that the gateway will work better than a list:

1. We have a large number of participants who can only access Internet
mail. Converting this list to a newsgroup will delete them from the
discussion, and many have very valuable things to contribute.

2. Despite the occasional (well, perhaps frequent) "frank exchanges,"
as they say in the diplomatic world, the level of discussion on
blues-l has been very, very good. The s-n ratio is immeasurably small,
and the biggest "problem"on the list has ben people who post gigantic
volumes of information about blues artists (entire discographies, etc)
to the list. A usenet group would be happy to have such a
problem. Turning this into a newsgroup would mean that many people --
myself included -- would no longer follow the discussion as closely. I
read every blues-l digest because I know that basically every post
will be about blues, written by someone who cares about blues, and
even if I don't agree with it, it will make me think/smolder/laugh/buy
a CD. With the newsgroup, I'd have no such guarantee, and would lose
touch with the group.

3. The gateway -- as I understand it -- would solve both problems. The
list subscribers who want to read the list via the group would be able
to do so, using their newsreaders as they please. The list would
pretty much stay the same, with the same quality of posts and
material. Subscribers' messages would appear on the newsgroup, and (is
this true?) others would be able to crosspost and respond within the
group without affecting the list.

4. The list remains unmoderated. We have had very sharp differences of
opinion on the list, and some attempts have been made to restrict
various types of postings or to impose rules ranging from "No
discussion of rap music" to "Send long postings to a different list."
So far, the lack of a moderator has forced those with extreme opinions
(including myself, on occasion) to live within the general community
rather than trying to co-opt a moderator, and has avoided the problem
of a moderator who seems to "take sides."

I for one would be very, very disappointed if blues-l were to go away
and be replaced by a newsgroup. Frankly, I'd probably spend a few
hours writing a perl program to convert a list of subscribers to the
list into a kill file for nn so I'd only see posts from the
subscribers.

Please consider this carefully. Thanks.


-- 
Ken Ficara                                                      ficara@acm.org
       Compu$erve: 71311,1461 / AOL: KENFICARA / Prodigy:(NOT!)

In article <1994Jul1.203114.8609@brtph560.bnr.ca>, cromwell@bnr.ca (David
Cromwell P865) says:
>There are a lot of people on the list who 1. like the list exactly as
>it is, and 2., are very concerned that a two way gateway to the list
>would result in lots of extraneous postings and would ruin the
>nature of the list.
>
>There is another group of people on the list who feel the traffic is
>way to high and who want newsgroup access.  The compromise was to have
>the one-way link.
>
>The r.m.b.b RFD is completely independent of the bit.bluesl proposal.

(1) If a mainstream group exists on the same subject matter, then it
    should be used rather than setting up another group on the same
    topic.

(2) Your statement above implies that the sole purpose of the new group
    is simply to make life easier for a subset of the 648 subscribers to
    BLUES-L. You may not realize you are asking us to spend machine
    resources gateway'ing the group, asking the whole Usenet community to
    spend resources sending these posts around the world, and then asking
    tens of thousands Usenet sites to spend disk resources keeping your
    posts on-line. This seems like a lot of money to just make life
    easier for a relatively small number of people.

    Perhaps those people who want the list in a group should consider a
    local gateway.

I am not in favor of asking tens of thousands of Usenet sites to expend
resources if their users cannot benefit from that expense.

Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA

ficara@remus.rutgers.edu (Ken Ficara) writes:

>There are two reasons that the gateway will work better than a list:

Um, make that four reasons. I thought of more as I was typing. Oops. :)

-- 
Ken Ficara                                                      ficara@acm.org
       Compu$erve: 71311,1461 / AOL: KENFICARA / Prodigy:(NOT!)

jim@american.edu (Jim McIntosh) writes:

>(1) If a mainstream group exists on the same subject matter, then it
>    should be used rather than setting up another group on the same
>    topic.

Unless the creation of r.m.b.blues passes, no such group exists. 

>(2) Your statement above implies that the sole purpose of the new group
>    is simply to make life easier for a subset of the 648 subscribers to
>    BLUES-L. You may not realize you are asking us to spend machine
>    resources gateway'ing the group, asking the whole Usenet community to
>    spend resources sending these posts around the world, and then asking
>    tens of thousands Usenet sites to spend disk resources keeping your
>    posts on-line. This seems like a lot of money to just make life
>    easier for a relatively small number of people.

I understand your point. At the moment (based on some private email
with one of the people who's proposing the gateway) we ae considering
creating bit.blues-l or whatever, and either:

(a) Allowing blues-l subscribers only to post to the group, so that
the content of the group would be identical to the content of the
list. This is the arrangement that Jim is objecting to above.

(b) Allowing everyone to post to the group, and forwarding their
messages to the list. This would essentially destroy the mailing list
by making the already-hard-to-deal-with volume completely
unmanageable. 

I would be happy with (a). I absolutely oppose (b). But what about:

(c) Allow anyone to post to the group, but forward posts to the list
only if they are from subscribers. This would solve all the problems:
it would pretty much leave blues-l alone; would provide a general
blues discussion forum for the Usenet community; and it would give
current blues-l subscribers two options to read the list: the focused,
smaller version (the list) and the broader, larger version (the
newsgroup).

Is (c) technically possible? I'm not well-versed in how the
mirror/gateway software works. It seems a possible answer to Jim's
concerns that does not destroy the list as it exists now.	


-- 
Ken Ficara                                                      ficara@acm.org
       Compu$erve: 71311,1461 / AOL: KENFICARA / Prodigy:(NOT!)

In article <Jul.6.10.34.59.1994.208@remus.rutgers.edu>, ficara@remus.rutgers.edu (Ken Ficara) says:
>(c) Allow anyone to post to the group, but forward posts to the list
>only if they are from subscribers. This would solve all the problems:
>it would pretty much leave blues-l alone; would provide a general
>blues discussion forum for the Usenet community; and it would give
>current blues-l subscribers two options to read the list: the focused,
>smaller version (the list) and the broader, larger version (the
>newsgroup).
>
>Is (c) technically possible? I'm not well-versed in how the
>mirror/gateway software works. It seems a possible answer to Jim's
>concerns that does not destroy the list as it exists now.       

Yes, it is technically possible. I guess I am sort of disappointed
in the attitude "My God! It's a newsgroup! How horrible!" when you 
have no experience with a newsgroup. Perhaps there will be no new
additional posts, or so few you don't notice. There seems to be a
demand for a newsgroup, and at the same time a fear of the unknown.

I would suggest this. IF it is decided that there needs to be a
b.l.blues-l newsgroup, then set it up moderated with the list address
being the moderator address where submissions are sent. Do nothing 
on the list side. WHEN AND IF this feared (but improbable) mass of 
posts starts to appear, THEN consider changing the list to "Send=
Private". This at leasts gives the Usenet community the benefit of
the doubt, while preserving the owner's option to control posts if
the number does get out of hand.

Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA

It is important to understand that there are two sides to a gateway,
and thus two different groups of moderation strategies.  If the
newsgroup is to be moderated, it must be proposed and voted on,
and any change to un-moderated would also involve a vote (or the
moderator could automatically pass all articles, thus in effect
having an unmoderated newsgroup).

The mailing list side can also be moderated, without affecting the
newsgroup directly.  This would in effect be a filter on the list,
so list subscribers would see only part of the traffic from the
newsgroup, assuming some articles are rejected at the gateway.
This second moderation strategy is entirely at the discretion of
the list owner.

"Option C" is a hybrid setup, whereby the list owner automatically
passes articles that come from list subscribers, whether the
article came directly from the subscriber, or via the newsgroup
gateway.  It is another sort of filter, not moderation per se.

Hope this helps.


-- 
	Una Smith			smith-una@yale.edu

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT  06520-8104  USA