🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ejd2mINN2uv@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>I've got a whole lot of problems with this message.

>To aid us in our decision, could you inform those who do not read the "sources"
>group what the charter of that group says about appropriate posts?  (I real-
>ize that a resourceful man like myself should be able to find the charter on
>his own, but perhaps there are others who are less resourceful out there.)

Back in the days of net.sources, charters came real loose.  As far as I 
am concerned, this is the charter:

    Comp.sources.misc is sort of a "catch-all" sources group.  The group is
    run in a generally informal manner.  *Any* program source code will be
    accepted. Discussion and "sources wanted" requests will be discarded 
    with a message back to the sender advising then to post to the correct 
    newsgroup.  

See the Introduction to comp.sources.misc for more information.

>>I am running a vote to  once and  for  all decide whether of not 
>>SHAREWARE  should be  posted to  comp.sources.misc.  If you feel 
>>that  SHAREWARE is (un)acceptable  then  let me know via a vote. 
>
>This is fine, but calling this is CFV is *not* OK!  For one thing, I haven't
>seen *any* discussion of this on news.groups, let alone a formal RFD.

Say what ?  This is *not* a call for votes for a _new_ newsgroup.  This is a
community vote for newsgroup/moderator direction.  There are no guidelines
that need be followed here. :-) :-)  And last I heard, CFV was not 
trademarked. :-)

>So, in summary:
>(1)  Post the charter

Ok. Done above.

>(2)  Ask for discussion, and then hold a formal RFD

No.  It has been discussed to death everytime shareware is posted.

>(3)  If there is interest, post a CFV which follows the guidelines.

Already done according to the moderator direction guidelines... ;-)

>A thought occurs to me.  Perhaps all these guidelines are merely ways for 
>we "elitist" users to hide behind a bureaucracy?  (Gag!)  Maybe what the
>UseNet needs is *more* anarchy, not less?  In the case of this "vote", I
>think it is important that a quick decision be reached, more important than
>that the decision be an "official" one.

I was asked by multiple people to make the net more aware of the in-progress 
directional vote.  Thanks for your assistance... :-)  I don't think speed is 
all that important since this practice has been going on since 1987.  The 
moderator needs to know where the community wants comp.sources.misc to stand 
on the issue of shareware.  Although this may signal a net-wide sentiment,
the vote and its results only apply to comp.sources.misc.

			-Kent+
---
Kent Landfield                   INTERNET: kent@IMD.Sterling.COM
Sterling Software, IMD           UUCP:     uunet!sparky!kent
Phone:    (402) 291-8300         FAX:      (402) 291-4362
Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.