🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2082.25c5b17a@mccall.uucp>, tp@mccall.uucp writes:
> In article <4530@lmrc.uucp>, hassinger@lmrc.uucp writes:
...
> OK, maybe refuse is the wrong word. Somebody pointed out that the stuff is
> all supposed to be public domain, so nobody could stop someone else from
> posting the info elsewhere. Likewise, any DECUServe subscriber can post
> things on DECUServe, as long as they take responsibility for the postings
> following the rules. So theoretically, a subscriber could gateway the
> material without DECUServe's approval, or knowledge even.

Correct, anyone who wants to could gateway DECUServe notes out to the net, or
do any number of other things with them for that matter.  And yes, in theory
anyone could gateway net postings back into DECUServe via *their* DECUServe
account, even without telling the DECUServe management about it.  In fact I
have heard of code that does just this type of gateway-ing running inside DEC on
their Notes network and maybe elsewhere too, so it can be done.

In the DECUServe case however, the person who causes the posting to be made,
the owner of that account, is responsible for the content of each and every
posting.  They are bound by a well defined set of canons.  Anyone who expects
to retain their DECUServe account for very long would have to manually review
every posting before it was put up on DECUServe.  They could not use an
automated gateway.  Like it or not, that is the way it is.  DECUServe must work
under a very different set of constraints from Usenet.

...

> I'll have to take your word for the factionalized political setting of
> DECUServe, ...

Really its the state of DECUS more than DECUServe although there are
differences at the technical level there.

...

> 1) There could be enough people out there that would rather dial in to
> DECUServe rather than run news such that there would be a big enough
> subscriber base to support the system. ...

I believe it is still true that even without a two way news gateway, DECUServe
does not have enough subscribers to break even, it is increasing prices, and
its future is not entirely secure.  You have to at least keep this in mind when
you suggest things that could reduce the subscriber base.  There might not be
any system at all if subscriptions go down.

...

> I will assume that the following just looks like a flame and wasn't really
> meant to be one. If I'm wrong on that, correct me and I'll generate a more
> appropriate response. 
...
No flame intended but I know what you mean, it can be a fine line sometimes...
...

Re "free ride" - I think DECUServe has turned out to be a premium grade service
at a premium price.  That is, it costs more to use than Usenet (small
subscription fee plus phone costs), but it provides faster response and a
higher signal to noise ratio, partly because of its inherent design (one
machine, VAX Notes, single coherent message base, truly "real time"
question/answer cycles...) and partly because of the highly structured and
moderated conferences and overall management (some one is in charge if you
will).  It turns out to cost a lot of money to do this, even with the
subscribers paying their own phone bills and volunteers for most of the work. 
Yes, it would be nice to have the same level of service available to everyone
on the net "for free", but someone has to pay the bills.  Should some get it
for free and others have to pay so they can?  I think the real answer depends
more on details of exactly what is done than on grand principles anyway.

...

>>                         Get on DECUServe and get into the discussion.  Become
>> the "champion" for your idea.  That is the way DECUS works.  That is the way
>> you get things done in the Society.  Take it from one who has been doing just
>> this for over twenty years.
> 
> I'm not allowed to express my views unless I pay a subscriber fee plus
> connect time and go through the hassle of dialing in to their system to do
> so? I haven't been in DECUS for 20 years, but that sure hasn't been my
> observation of how it works. 

Not at all. You certainly can express your views, but what I am saying is that
doing it here is not very effective because the people you have to talk to and
the relevant discussions are there; just a practical consideration.  And I
don't think you meant that "champion"ing ideas is not the way DECUS works.  I
assure you that IS the way things get done in DECUS, as well as most other
organizations I know of.

In any case, the discussions about these subjects are most certainly going on
on DECUServe, and have been all along.  If you want to help make it happen you
will be much more effective being there, in them, and you will also be in a
better position to to understand what the constraints and limits are.

Also, as I said, much work *is* being done to find ways to do the parts of this
that can make sense within DECUServe's built in constraints.  Much of it by
most capable people who are very familiar with the possibilities you have
outlined and who want them as much as you do.

So - keep the faith, and come on over, DECUServe offers a lot... :-)

Bob Hassinger
508-435-9061
...uunet!ccavax!lmrc!hassinger   hassinger@lmrc.UUCP