🚀 go-pugleaf

I also have been troubled by the overbroad mandate and poorly chosen
name of comp.sources.reviewed.  We used to have newsgroups with poorly
chosen names containing `moderated' or `mod', but I had thought we
learned our lesson that newsgroup names should reflect their contents,
not their editorial methods.

But karsten@tfl.dk writes:

>Many of the bested public domain packages have been ported from UNIX
>to other operating systems, and some the other way.  In the future, we
>can expect people will comply with the posix standards, which will
>supported on many operating systems.  So in the future packages will
>not be for one operating system.

This suggests that for sanity's sake, the newsgroup will stick to Posix
(or at least Posix-like) applications.  It also suggests that competent
reviewers will check for Posix conformance.  This will indeed be a
service to the computing community.  If so, I suggest that the name of
the proposed newsgroup be changed to `comp.sources.posix', because it
will reflect the newsgroup's contents far more accurately.