🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6764@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
	lilleyc@cs.man.ac.uk (Chris Lilley) writes:
>   [proposal for comp.sources.postscript and comp.sources.postscript.d]
>
>There are two reasons why the suggested names are a good idea.
>Firstly, they follow existing net conventions of a sources or binaries
>group paired with another group with the ".d" appended - meaning the
>discussion group. Conforming to the defacto naming standard seems a
>good thing in itself - people know what to expect of the group simply
>by looking at its name.

I disagree.  My experience indicates that many people either don't
realize there is a ".d" group and don't know that "d" means
discussion, either.  All you have to do is to take a look at any of
the unmoderated pictures groups to see that there are tons of people
who won't follow this convention, _even_ when they do understand it.

>Secondly, it ensures that discussion - which can be quite lengthy and
>can diverge wildly from the original topic before the thread dies - is
>in a separate group.

A moderator ensures that discussion doesn't end up in the sources
group.  The moderator can simply point them back to
comp.lang.postscript.

>Moderated. Make that three reasons. A moderated sources group would be
>a good idea IMHO, wheras I feel the discussion group would be better
>unmoderated.

Exactly.  With a moderated sources group, there is no need for an
"extra" discussion group.  I could see the argument for creating
another discussion group if the volume of comp.lang.postscript was
already high, but any extra discussion can easily find room here.

						-- Rich
-- 
		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer