🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ejd2mINN2uv@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.171751.25602@sparky.imd.sterling.com> votes@sparky.sterling.com writes:
> >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.

It's not a CVF for creating a newsgroup.  And Kent Landfield is after
all the moderator of comp.sources.misc.  Are there any spesific written
rules for changing/adding rules to the charter, and are there rules for
what liberties the moderator can have with the charter?

The charter doesn't touch upon shareware, it simply states that
"*Any* program source code will be accepted."

There has already been a short discussion in comp.sources.d.

If you're not pleased, why not start a CFD yourself, and then a formal CFV
in a month in case anyone else agrees?

> 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?

Hmm, you seem to have been reading Scott Forbes' postings lately... 8)

> 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.

Indeed, and that is probably what Kent wanted, and I agree fully.
So what are we discussing? 8)

-Frank.