🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ejd2mINN2uv@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>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.
>
>If a simple majority wins then this is by no means a formal CFV and should
>not be called one.
>
>So, in summary:
>
>(1)  Post the charter
>
>(2)  Ask for discussion, and then hold a formal RFD
>
>(3)  If there is interest, post a CFV which follows the guidelines.

You're confusing this with the "Guidelines for newsgroup creation",
which has nothing to do with this new vote.  It's simply the moderator
asking people what he should do, and doing so by adopting procedures
*similar* to newsgroup creation.  As moderator, he could just arbitrarily
decide;  he has instead chosen to ask people on the net what they think.
Whether it's called a "CFV", "Straw Poll", "Request For Input" or
"Rose By Another Name", there certainly is no need for him to follow
all of the newsgroup creation guidelines.

-- 
Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
"There's nothing quite like watching your most recent          |    /oo \
crush, and your second-most recent crush, rushing into         |    <>__|
each others' arms..."  --- Miss Almira Gulch                   |    |  U|

I've got a whole lot of problems with this message.

In article <1992Nov20.171751.25602@sparky.imd.sterling.com> votes@sparky.sterling.com writes:
>There has been an on going discussion as to whether SHAREWARE is 
>acceptable for posting in the group comp.sources.misc.  This has 
>been a topic that flares up  everytime that a piece of SHAREWARE 
>is posted to the group. [...]

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.)

>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.

>VOTING PROCEDURE:
[deletion]
>The vote will continue until Midnight, December 5, 1992. At that 
>time I will tally and abide by the results of the vote. A simple 
>majority wins.

If a simple majority wins then this is by no means a formal CFV and should
not be called one.

So, in summary:

(1)  Post the charter

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

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

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu

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.

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.

 

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.
>
>In article <1992Nov20.171751.25602@sparky.imd.sterling.com> votes@sparky.sterling.com writes:
>>There has been an on going discussion as to whether SHAREWARE is 
>>acceptable for posting in the group comp.sources.misc.  This has 
>>been a topic that flares up  everytime that a piece of SHAREWARE 
>>is posted to the group. [...]

Given the volume of shareware around the place, I suggest a separate group
might be more appropriate:  comp.sources.shareware?

On the other hand, shareware is usually "freely" available from commercial
sources at reasonable prices, so why clutter USENET with it?

Of more interest would be user reviews of shareware products, which
would include PC-SIG disk numbers, author's address, and asking price
for registration of the product.

-- 
Ian Staples                       | Internet : ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054,                | Fax      : +61 (0)70 923 593
MAREEBA  Queensland  4880         | Voice    : +61 (0)70 921 555
Australia.                        | Home     : +61 (0)70 924 847

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.
> ... [ points where Kent has ignored the net.rules deleted ] ...
>
>So, in summary:
>(1)  Post the charter
>(2)  Ask for discussion, and then hold a formal RFD
>(3)  If there is interest, post a CFV which follows the 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.
>
>-- 
>Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu

Thanks for that final thought, Joshua.
Having just lived through the fiasco of the renaming of rec.music.synth,
I've become a convert to the notion that common sense is MUCH more important
than following the rules.  Kent, for all his procedural sloppines vis-a-vis
the rules, has generated a CFV that makes MUCH more sense than the CFV that
appeared in rec.music.synth.  And despite the lack of a formal RFD, the
discussion here has been much more relevant and understandable than the
non-discussion or almost-dicussion in rec.music.synth.

Summary:
 - Despite the lack of procedural nicety, I don't think there's anyone in
   this group who isn't aware what the vote is about.
 - Despite rigidly following procedural nicety, too many readers of
   rec.music.synth had no idea what the vote was about.

I'll take clarity and common sense over procedural nicety any day.

Dave

Could I suggest that this discussion no longer belongs in
alt.sources.d? Since it's a discussion about a newsgroup, I've
redirected followups to news.groups. All you people whining about
protocol and CFV's and RFD's etc. etc. should have remembered one of
the cardinal rules of posting: "Redirect followups appropriately."
I suppose comp.sources.d might be just as appropriate... Ok, I'll add
it. Change it as appropriate.

George


-- 
George Ferguson                 ARPA: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu
Dept. of Computer Science       UUCP: rutgers!rochester!ferguson
University of Rochester         VOX:  (716) 275-2527
Rochester  NY  14627-0226       FAX:  (716) 461-2018

randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>I've got a whole lot of problems with this message.

[ murky logic stuff deleted ]

>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.

This too is pretty murky.  However, the way the moderator is doing
this is the quick way.  It is also as offical as it gets since he
is the moderator.

I think I was the first one to ask the "should shareware ..." question
this time.  I was put off by the implied guilt trip solicitation.
After some neanderthals used the question to inject their own bigoted
agenda, I reconsidered my position.

I voted for the proposal.
-- 
If you run a news system you can be  ||  Jan Isley
a petty tyrant.  - Edward Vielmetti  ||  jan@bagend.uucp (404)434-1335

In article <1ejd2mINN2uv@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:

   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?

If you don't read it, why are you concerned about its content?

   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 new group proposal, nor was it labeled a Call For Votes.
It's a referendum by the moderator of an existing group on a question
internal to the group.

This poll does not violate any Usenet guidelines and I don't
understand why you are making a big deal out of it.  If you want to be
controversial, try stating an opinion on *.synth.  :)
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov23151409@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>>In article <1ejd2mINN2uv@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>>
>>   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?
>
>If you don't read it, why are you concerned about its content?

While you have a valid point (namely that those who don't read a group probably
shouldn't vote on things concerining that group), the fact of the matter is
that now that the CFV has been posted here, I, and anyone else who takes the
time to read this group -- or just news.announce.newsgroups -- can vote on this
issue.

Actually, I think this is an important issue for everyone.  It falls somewhere
under the "commercial uses of the 'Net" rubric.

>It's not a new group proposal, nor was it labeled a Call For Votes.
>It's a referendum by the moderator of an existing group on a question
>internal to the group.

Well yes, but it has much wider implications.  Let's say that a simple majority
of votes feel that Shareware should *not* be posted.  This could set a prece-
dent for future "commercial uses of the 'Net" debates.

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu