🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1131@pcsbst.UUCP> jkh@meepmeep.pcs.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
   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.

First, yes, I did set up the gnu.* gateways in the first place, using
the code that Erik Fair developed for the inet gateways at ucbvax.
But since I'm no longer at OSU, gateway management has fallen to Karl
Kleinpaste.  So blame him these days :-)

Second, please be careful!  gnu.* is not Usenet!  The two networks
share transport mechanisms and access techniques, and are often
colocated on the same nodes and edges, but are otherwise completely
distinct (with one slight exception - see below).

   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 reason that (most of) the gnu.* newsgroups were set up as they are
(unmoderated) is because setting up a moderated newsgroup requires
active cooperation by the sites on the Usenet that maintain the list
of moderated-newsgroup posting-into-mail aliases.  These are the sites
that you name in your ${LIBDIR}/mailpaths as a "backbone" site.  Since
one mailing list/newsgroup (info-gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu/gnu.announce) is
moderated, the GNU news heirarchy is already slightly freeloading on
the good graces of the Usenet.

Those "backbone" sites agreed that this wasn't Such A Bad Thing, and
said that they would be willing to maintain one extra alias to support
a non-Usenet news heirarchy.  As it turns out, Brian Reid was able to
use this precedent to establish his alt.gourmand as a moderated group,
and again nobody complained.  However, I would suspect that if there
were a flood of non-Usenet moderation requests, the "backbone" sites
might get a little itchy.  There might arise calls for new moderation
mechanisms, which would require new policies and new software, which
would be a royal mess to accomplish and very noisy to decide.

Since some folks on Usenet are very sensitive to the nature and
content of gnu.*, we have worked to maintain the distinction.  Having
set one precedent that's quietly working pretty well, I'm personally
not eager to push things.  Of course, you're welcome to do whatever
you like.

   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.

The problem here is the same as with the occasional calls to split
comp.windows.x: The X developers are still on the Xpert mailing list,
and aren't eager to begin reading more lists.  For their own reasons,
they don't want to switch to the news mechanisms.  Therefore, if
comp.windows.x.questions were established, it would be in touch with
some segment of the community but not with the people holding the real
answers and solutions.  The X community seems to have become content
with one newsgroup.

I suspect that few GNU developers would begin reading new Usenet
newsgroups or associated mailing lists, and those groups would soon
starve for lack of real information and knowledge.  Anyone who would
be tempted to post to comp.gnu.emacs.questions would probably
cross-post to gnu.emacs, or actively run the risk of not getting a
useful answer from those In The Know.  The new groups would soon
wither and die of neglect and disuse.

Regarding interim bug fixes, if suggestions don't get to the
developers, then the effort is wasted because the fixes will either be
left out of the next version, or reinvented.  If the developers don't
get the chance to see the fixes, perhaps nobody else will be able to
say "no - don't do that!  it's dangerous!" with sufficient intimate
knowledge to be useful.

   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.

See above - there's the GNU user community and the GNU developer
community.  The users, I suspect, are more eager to be where the
developers are.

   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.

I suspect that your suggestion would touch off a lot of heat and noise
in news.groups and elsewhere, and would eventually not get much of
anywhere.  But of course, you're welcome to try!

   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.

A noble gesture, and appreciated!  Lots of folks just complain without
offering to do the work required for (what they perceive to be)
positive forward motion.

And what's geography got do with it, other than your being a few time
zones ahead of a lot of us?  Connectivity is the issue, and even more
than that, reliable addressibility.  If I can get mail to you via a
legally registered fully qualified domain name, you could be on Saturn
for all I care.