🚀 go-pugleaf

Given some recent revelations as to the actual statement and purpose
of several of the gnu mailing lists (not necessarily good or bad),
I felt it might be a good time to raise a thorny question which
has often appeared, though not in recent memory, in these lists.

That is, of course, the question of moderation.

It has been often stated that the gnu.* lists are mailing lists internal
to the FSF which appear by sufferance (and through the auspices of Bob
Sutterfield) on usenet. The contents and form of these lists are more
or less dictated by the FSF, as is only proper considering that they
are still more-or-less "owned" (in the words of RMS) by them. However,
what works well for a mailing list may not always work well for a de-facto
newsgroup that is being paid for by a sizable percentage of the usenet
community. This issue has come up time and time again, most recently when
I mistakenly flamed several people for posting 80K unfiltered CPP output
to gnu.gcc.bug (or, more importantly, to bug-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu). Due
to a misunderstanding on my part. I took issue with them for flooding
a newsgroup with a volumnous amount of information useful to only a small
percentage of its readership. My mistake wasn't in taking issue with
flooding a newsgroup with junk, my mistake was that gnu.bug.gcc ISN'T
a newsgroup, it's a gatewayed mailing list with a different set of rules.

Given that many of us are paying a good deal of $$$ for this different
set of rules, I would like to propose an alternative solution.

I would like to see a set of moderated newsgroups set up to take the place of
certain gnu.xxx groups where and when deemed necessary. These newsgroups
would serve as a public forum, owned by no one (but administered by
a generally agreed upon moderator), for discussing some portion of
the gnu software. No politics, no "look-and-feel" flames, no 80K dumps
of raw CPP output, just information pertinent to that piece of software.

The moderator could also serve a second very useful function by testing
contributed interim bug fixes and acting as a buffer for the "Here's
a fix. No, wait, that wasn't right, here it is" sort of messages.

Support people would no longer have to wade through dozens of copies
of "where can I get *my* copy of xxxx." just to get to the critical
information.

Basically, I don't necessarily disagree with the FSF's goals and/or
political bent, I just don't see why I should have to pay to see others
argue about it or have to read copies large internal bug reports. I also
don't see why the GNU developers should have to wade through all the
extra trash just to get to the serious bug reports either. RMS has said
again and again that those that don't like the lists' S/N ratio can
simply leave. Very well, I would like to do just that.
I do not, however, want to lose access to the rest of the GNU user
community.

Before going so far as to solicit a call for votes (or start looking
for a moderator), I would like to know what the rest of you think.

Lest I be accused of being unwilling to put my money where my mouth
is, I am willing to do the moderation myself if no one in a better
geographical position agrees to do so.


				Jordan Hubbard
				PCS Computer Systeme, GmbH.
				Munich, West Germany
			PCS Computer Systeme GmbH, Munich, West Germany
	UUCP:		pyramid!pcsbst!jkh jkh@meepmeep.pcs.com
	EUNET:		unido!pcsbst!jkh
	ARPA:		jkh@violet.berkeley.edu or hubbard@decwrl.dec.com