🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2B30D207.3681@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
|> According to strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
|> >The published guidelines on Subject lines imply that people reading
|> >news have a limited amount of time, and are justified in skipping
|> >over articles whose subject lines don't indicate relevance.
|> 
|> Your use of the word "guidelines" is misleading.  In this discussion,
|> "guidelines" refers specifically to the guidelines for newsgroup
|> creation and renaming, also known as "How To Create a New Newsgroup."
|> 
|> In future, please refer to articles by their names.
|> 

I agree that I was being imprecise.  I was using the word
"guidelines" loosely to refer to all the tutorial postings
in news.announce.newusers:  None are actually labelled
as "guidelines" in their titles but reading them as a whole, they
appear to function collectively as such.

"A Primer on How to Work with the Usenet Community"
is, roughly speaking, the guidelines on proprieties
for posting articles; "How to Create a New Usenet
Newsgroup" internally calls itself the guidelines
for Usenet group creation.

I did refer to the "Primer" by its full name in an
earlier posting explaining the source of the Subject
line quote.  I also included another quote from
the introduction to the Primer article (which it
calls a "message") in which it claims itself
to be a description of the "Usenet culture and customs".

|> The below quote is not from _the_ guidelines.
|> 
|> >These guidelines say:
|> >
|> >  The subject line of an article is there to enable a person with a limited
|> >  amount of time to decide whether or not to read your article.
|> 

You are correct.  They are from the "Primer".  But I think a
new user who reads both the "Primer" and "How to Create..."
will assume that the Primer describes the proprieties
for all articles, and How to Create describes the *additional*
rules for newsgroup creation.

|> Yes, that's why the Subject line exists.  But it can't always achieve
|> its worthy purpose, because there's no one criterion for a person's
|> wanting to read a given article.  In other words, what's important to
|> me about an article won't necessarily be important to you.
|> 
|> In brief: Specific requirements for subject lines may help the
|> situation, but they won't cure it.

I agree.  I don't know how to make the system foolproof.
I am merely seeking a way to make it better.

|> 
|> >Multiple changes should only be placed on a single ballot if no more
|> >than a single existing group or hierarchy of groups is directly
|> >affected by the change.
|> 
|> Okay by me.
|> 
|> >The RFDs and CFVs for name changes and reorganizations should
|> >be clearly labelled in the Subject line with the acronym RFD
|> >or CFD and the name of the newsgroup or newsgroup hierarchy
|> >which would be directly affected by the proposed change.
|> >
|> >For example:  Subject: RFD: rec.ham-radio.* reorganization
|> 
|> Sure.  That's how I labelled the first comp.unix.* reorganization,
|> except I spelled out "CALL FOR DISCUSSION" and "CALL FOR VOTES".  And
|> yet there were _still_ people claiming not to have known about the
|> vote, and whining about its results.

I don't know the details of the comp.unix.* reorganization.
If it changed the names only of groups previously of the form
comp.unix.*, and a posting with that title went to every
group under comp.unix whose name was being changed, and
people still complained, then my proposal wouldn't have helped, 
and I don't know what would.

My proposal would have changed the rec.music.synth voting procedure,
since a change to the name of rec.music.synth could not
be part of a ballot named "rec.music.makers.* reorganization".


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598