🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4589@lmrc.uucp>, hassinger@lmrc.uucp writes:
> 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.  

Very reasonable. That is why I suggested a moderator. I don't know if I
made this point before, but a moderator could also help keep the quality
(signal to noise ratio) of the usenet-submitted articles at the DECUServe
levels, so as to avoid the (very likely) possibility that an un-moderated
usenet gateway would bring down the quality of the overall traffic.

> 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).  

I'm not quite sure about the advantages you list for DECUServe, and wonder
how much of it is just subjective opinion:

Faster response - Over 2400 bps, compared to running news on my VS3100? I
doubt it. If you meant faster response to questions, see below.

Higher signal to noise - Even compared to a moderated newsgroup on usenet?
Groups like comp.sources.*, comp.risks, etc. Have no noise at all except
for administrivia. If you go with a moderator, you can acheive just about
any quality level the moderator is willing to enforce.

One machine - This is a plus and a minus. The plus is because you don't
have propagation delays. The minus is because you have to dial into that
machine and read stuff on LD time.

VAX Notes - Is this an advantage? I've only used it at DECUS symposia, so
I'm not a skilled user, but it seemed to be about even to me. It seems to
organize a discussion better, but on the assumption that you want to read
it all. It seems to offer fewer capabilities for "skimming" through and
reading just what you want to read. I've used the notesfiles system from
UIUC, which is where the concept of VAXnotes came from (having used both,
I'm reasonably sure of this, though DEC may deny it), and have always
preferred news, although notes would work better in a one machine
environment than a networked environment, because of the way responses are
chained.

coherent message base - I don't quite know what you mean here.

Real time Q&A - I guess that depends on how often you call in. I've gotten
responses to usenet articles the same day (once within 30 minutes). If I
were on DECUServe, I doubt I could manage to call in more than twice a
week. I'm using a workstation, so it is easy to keep news in a window and
hop back and forth during compiles, or for little 5 minute "breaks". Having
to dial in means I would have to dedicate a block of time (because of phone
charges), and that is difficult for me to do. I suspect othersfeel
similarly. This is why I'm not on DECUServe. I probably wouldn't be even if
it were free. My company would willingly pay for it if I told them it was
worth while, but I doubt seriously I would ever use it (I should call DSIN
regularly, but I don't).

Moderation - I suspect this is of equal effectiveness on usenet vs.
DECUServe. As far as someone being in control, this is an issue that hasn't
come up yet on VMSnet. VMSnet is a project of the VMSnet working group of
the VAX SIG of DECUS. I'm not sure what degree of control that working
group has over the traffic in the group. Probably as much as we want to
claim. People will vote with their feet. For instance, I've been "managing"
VMSnet almost single handedly, with input from others. There have been no
formal votes, I do things when I feel there is a concensus. In a sense, I
am in charge of the net, although we have no official policy on this, and
should probably create one. I'm in favor or the working group retaining
some degree of management authority, to avoid some of the things that go on
on usenet (cf sci.aquaria). Such a policy might ease some of the gatewaying
issues. VMSnet is not usenet, and may be easier for DECUServe to work with
(for one thing, I can guarantee a receptive audience!).

> 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. 

I would guess that the main cost is the cost of the machine itself. This
certainly is a real cost, and is why I've always supposed that they would
be reluctant to do anything that might cut into their funding, but based on
Seton's message, it looks like they are looking at it, so maybe there is a
solution available for that problem.

> 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?

If you look at your list of advantages, most of them would not transfer
across the gateway, thus the people on the net would not get the same level
of service (note that many people are willing to pay uunet for increased
levels of service). Also, it could be argued that increasing the size of
the readership (and thus the number of potential posters) is providing
increased service to the paying members of the service. Providing better
service for the paying members should certainly take priority over NOT
providing service to people who don't pay, always assuming, of course, that
doing so doesn't undermine the viability of the service (i.e. the funding
structure).

>                                               I think the real answer depends
> more on details of exactly what is done than on grand principles anyway.

Absolutely. I think there are ways to do this that MIGHT work, but I
certainly don't know for sure.

> 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.

That is why I said I can't do much about making it happen. From a practical
viewpoint, I can't talk to the right people. If I wanted to join DECUServe,
it would be to participate in the discussions. I'm not likely to join for
the sole purpose of joining this debate.
  
> 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.

Glad to hear that the discussions are going on. And yes, I know I would be
more effective on this issue if I were part of them. But I'm not and could
not conveniently be. When the issue came up here, I had no idea it had ever
come up on DECUServe. I simply tried to counter some technical objections,
because it sounded like a good idea, and I'd hate to see it abandoned for
technical reasons that were unsound. I wish I could join the debate, but it
isn't worth $60 plus connect time to me, and I can't in good concience ask
my company to pay for me to get into an argument. If I thought I'd make any
use of the service, that would be different.

> 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.

Good. In that case, there isn't much else for me to say. I'm sorry if I've
wasted time covering things that have been covered elsewhere (and in a more
effective forum). If any of my ideas do look useful to anyone who IS on
DECUServe, feel free to use them.

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

I would probably join DECUServe if it could deliver traffic to my machine
in some form. If there were a VAXnotes gateway to news, I would probably
join to get the data onto my machine, even if it were not permissible to
distribute it net-wide (for lack of moderators, for instance). As I said
above, I just don't have the time to hassle with it in its current form. My
long distance budget is very limited, so I really couldn't make much use of
it. And I certainly don't have money to spend on buying VAXnotes. 
--  
Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 
The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA 
UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp  Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu