🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1hi13aINNitm@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec22.174745.56455@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >In article <1h629qINNp3r@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Dec21.225351.18200@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> 
|> Would you PLEASE set your quote character to be ONE character? It is
|> extremely confusing to see what looks like two levels of quotes where
|> there should be one.
|> 
I've been posting and replying for two years without anyone complaining
about the quotation mechanism.

I am using xrn, a very standard and widely used newsreader.
This is the default way it quotes.  I just reread the man
pages and saw no indication that it quotes any other way.

|> >|> That you still treat them as irrelevant only proves that you can't
|> >|> provide enough information to some people to educate them as to what the
|> >|> policies are. Your claims are contradictory -- you say that you accept
|> 
|> >I haven't tried to educate others yet as to what the policies are.
|> 
|> I am not referring to others -- I am referring to you.
|> 
I don't think you can demonstrate that I am unaware of the policies.
I think you are defocussing the discussion by bringing up
irrelevancies such as my allegedly defective newsreader and 
my alleged ignorance of the policies.  Let's get back to
discussion my proposed changes to the policies.


|> 
|> I made a considerable change to the Subject line and you still saw the
|> reply I made. So much for your estimation of excellent chances.
|> 
|> >rename comp.lang.misc.  I didn't say I *believe* these RFD's
|> >are irrelevant.  Read my posting again.  I said I *treat*
|> >them as irrelevant.  
|> 
|> That is, again, your choice. That you choose to treat them as irrelevant
|> despite claiming to understand that material that says that they are not
|> is your problem, not the net's, and wanting the net to change because
|> you don't want to spend the time at home to read news is not going to
|> get much sympathy.
|> 
I want the net to change policies so that all readers, not just
me, can spend less time reading news.  As the volume of USENET
grows, but the number of hours in a day remains constant, it
it will become more and more important to find new ways to
allow readers to prune the amount of news they read.  

It will be hard to regulate precision of subject lines in
general discussions, but at least we should be able to
take some steps to regulate precision of subject lines
in official articles, such as ballots.

|> >I spend too much time as it is reading
|> >and posting news, and one of the ways I cut down is to
|> >only read items whose subject lines are appropriately
|> >compelling.  
|> 
|> Fascinating. You claim to understand and accept the current policy, yet
|> you continue to act as if the term CFC is not compelling enough. That
|> sounds suspiciously like an apathetic attitude towards the new group
|> creation process.
|> 
No.  I claim to understand the current policy, not "understand
and accept".  Remember the purpose of this thread is to propose
a *change* to the current policy.  Hardly apathetic.


|> >I'm trying to deal with the fact that IMHO it's a bad policy, because
|> >it forces people to read RFD's and CFV's that they otherwise
|> >wouldn't have to read if the subject lines were more precise.
|> 
|> Nobody is forced to read anything. Arguing from the premise that they
|> are is a waste of time.
|> 
Forced on pain of possibly missing a ballot.  What's so difficult
about the suggestion that ballots should have precise subject lines
so that one doesn't have to read all ballots to find the ones one
is interested in?



|> >|> Second, there is more than one piece of information you want included.
|> >|> Renaming a.b.c to a.d.e affects both the a.b hierarchy and the a.d
|> >|> hierarchy, as well as the a.b.c newsgroup. I count three things that
|> >|> need to be in the Subject.
|> >
|> >In my proposal, I am concerned only about the effect on the
|> >a.b.c newsgroup, not the other two effects.
|> 
|> Why this lack of concern for affected newsgroups? Why aren't the a.d.*
|> readers worthy of the same clear, concise Subject line that will notify
|> them of proposed changes? If you define "affected" the way you want, you
|> MUST include a.d.*. Waffling about it by saying "I don't want to notify
|> them" is a direct violation of your own proposed rule. If you don't
|> think your own rule should be followed, don't propose it.
|> 

If I am a reader of a.d.foo, the fact that group a.b.c, which I
don't read, is going to be renamed a.d.e, does not change anything
at any significant level of importance.  It doesn't change which
set of postings are relevant for a.d.foo, it doesn't change
the name of a.d.foo, it doesn't do a thing.

|> >I am assuming that a reader of the a.b.c newsgroup will have
|> >to physically change his/her subscription list to avoid being cut off
|> >from accustomed news.  I consider that a major effect.
|> 
|> Really major. "New newsgroup a.d.e, subscribe? [ynYN]".
|> 
|> Typing ONE character is hardly a major effect.
|> 
That's not the only effect, as you know.  The newgroup message
arrives at varying times at different sites, may or may not
be lost by different sites.  There is a period of time when
postings appear on one or the other group or both groups.  To insure full
readership, it is necessary to crosspost articles to both
the old and new groups, etc.  I had to explicitly ask my
site maintainer to install the group rec.music.makers.synth.


|> >interested in.  I'm treating these non-physical effects
|> >as less important than the physical one.
|> 
|> Your own rule talks about changing charters. Either you mean it, or you
|> don't. Which is it? Either those who will have their "charter" changed
|> get clear notification, or your rule degenerates into shouting matches
|> about who should have been mentioned in the Subject line.
|> 
|> It is clear from your own example that teis "syntactic rule" is
|> useless, for you yourself don't believe it should be applied.
|> 
The CFV should specify the charter changes, so it is still syntactic.



|> >|> >The more frequently readers find irrelevant RFDs, the
|>  
|> >|> I thought you accepted that the presence of an RFD in a newsgroup meant
|> >|> it was relevant. This is the cuurent policy that you want to change,
|> >|> remember?
|>  
|> >Sorry for speaking over-elliptically.  I meant
|> >irrelevant-to-the-reader, as opposed to officially-deemed-relevant.
|> 
|> It is impossible to determine prior to the reader seeing it whether an
|> RFD will be deemed relevant. This determination will vary from reader to
|> reader. The only useful meaning to relevant in this sense is "relevant to
|> the newsgroup as a whole".
|> 
|> You should also be aware that your proposal will do nothing to decrease
|> the "irrelevant to the reader" RFD that are posted -- in fact, it will
|> INCREASE the likelyhood, since it will take more RFD to do the same
|> thing as is being done now.

What????  This is a proposal for *labelling* the RFD articles that
go out.  

Presumably if the RFD and CFV for the "rec.music.makers.*" reorg
had never been posted to rec.music.synth, then I would assume
that even under the current policies, the vote would have been
invalid.  So there would have to exist an RFD in each rec.music.makers
group and an RFD in rec.music.synth both the old way and under
my proposed new way.  The only difference is that the RFDs
under my proposals would have different subject lines.

|> 
|> >  I meant that readers are more likely to know whether
|> >an RFD for a name change is relevant-to-the-reader if the newsgroup name 
|> >or hierarchy name in the subject line specifies which group(s) are 
|> >affected-in-my-specialized-sense by the name change.
|> 
|> Which specialized meaning are you using now? The one you defined in your
|> proposed change which talks about "charter changes", or your "physical
|> change" (the one character one) that you just brought up?
|> 
A group is affected by a change if either its name or charter changes.

|> >|> >Sometimes charters are changed.  For example, if rec.scouting
|>  
|> >|> Present an example of a charter ever being changed by a vote. Provide
|> >|> both the pre-vote and post-vote charter. Save your time, there hasn't
|> >|> been one.
|> 
|> >I had assumed 
|> 
|> Present an example of a changed charter. Don't keep assuming things,
|> because you have a horrible track record at assuming things.
|> 
I did.  You just deleted it!  Rec.scouting would have a different charter
if rec.scouting.policy were created.  The *purpose* of the creation of
rec.scouting.policy was to remove certain categories of postings from
rec.scouting and put them into rec.scouting.policy.  (The actual ballot
additionally proposed to rename rec.scouting as rec.scouting.misc, but were
that renaming to fail, the rec.scouting group would keep its original
name, but the existence of rec.scouting.policy would still mean that
policy postings would no longer be welcome in rec.scouting.  Ask Danny Schwendener
what he intended to happen if (a) rec.scouting.policy passed, (b)
rec.scouting.activities and rec.scouting.misc failed.)

|> >|> >|> No, both are in rec. Rec.truckers, as a group, is in the same hierarchy
|> >|> >|> as the group rec.ham-radio.
|> 
|> >|> >You're right.  But then it couldn't be called any longer
|> >|> >"rec.ham-radio* reorg".  It would have to be called "rec.* reorg".
|>  
|> >|> Which ficticious quidelines are you now using to claim that reorganizing
|> >|> rec.ham-radio should have been called rec.* reorg? There ain't no such
|> >|> rule. It could have quite properly been called rec.ham-radio reorg. As
|> >|> it was, I believe it was called "rec.radio.* reorg...", and that nobody
|> >|> whined about the fact that the Subject  didn't have rec.ham-radio in
|> >|> it.
|> 
|> >The context was my proposed guidelines.  
|> 
|> If your proposed guidelines say that reorganizing rec.ham-radio into
|> rec.radio.amateur.* must be listed in the Subject as "rec.* reorg", then
|> there is something seriously wrong with your proposal. I just want you
|> to notice that YOU are the one who made the interpretation of your
|> proposed rules, not me, and YOu are the one who said it would need to be
|> called the rec.* reorg.
|> 

Reread my posting, and reread my proposal.  I originally
said:

>But if you wanted to also rename rec.truckers to rec.radio.cb.truckers,
>that would have to be on a different ballot, no matter how relevant
>you personally thought rec.truckers was to the rec.radio.cb hierarchy.
>This is because rec.truckers is currently in a different hierarchy from
>rec.ham-radio.

Then you said --- well they are in the same hierarchy --- namely rec.*,
and I replied

>... If [my proposed guidelines] went into effect,
>if you rename rec.truckers and rec.ham-radio, then either the
>changes go on separate ballots, or the ballot would have to
>be called a rec.* reorg.  I viewed the second alternative as
>absurd, so my first posting listed the first as the only possibility.

Got it?  Calling it a rec.* reorg is absurd, therefore the
only choice is to use two ballots.

|> >|> Like I said, "all at once". 
|> >|> 
|> >They can be done all at once with two ballots.
|> 
|> Which new definition of the phrase "at once" are you using?
|> 
This means that the ballots go out on the same day
and the voting periods are identical.

Exactly the same result as if several votes go out
on a single ballot.



|> Please stick to the topic. You implied very strongly that there would be
|> fewer  arguments over reorganizations (whether they are logical or not)
|> because of your rule. Your rule will have no such effect. Reading new
|> user doumentation or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.
|> 

I still imply it very strongly.  Had my rule been in effect prior to the
rec.music.makers reorg, the ballot posted in rec.music.synth
would have been labelled "rec.music.synth renaming".  Dave Hayes
and others wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if the
vote still passed, and zillions of flamepostings would have
been averted.

|> >I agree that everyone should read the new-user information.
|> >But I disagree that everyone should read every RFD or CFV,
|> >as the guidelines currently require them to.
|> 
|> Which set of guidelines is this? It isn't The Guidelines, they don't
|> require any such thing. The User's Guide? No, it doesn't require that.
|> 
|> Just which "guidelines" are you talking about now?
|> 
You're nitpicking again.  Of course no one is literally required
to read anything.  But if you're currently reading rec.music.synth
and see a CFV labelled "rec.music.makers.* reorg", then according
to today's policies, you're "required" to read it on pain of
possibly missing a vote which renames rec.music.synth.  Under my
proposed policies, you can safely skip the CFV

|> >|> Subject: RFD rec.ham-radio reorganization and rec.radio.* reorganization.
|> >|> 
|> >|> That is more than the 40 characters that the "guidelines" specify.
|> >|> 
|> >Yes, the example is obsolete.  It doesn't matter.  You can treat
|> >these names as meaningless charstrings if you like.
|> >
|> >No, my proposed-guidelines do not require rec.radio.* to be mentioned,
|> >because no newsgroup in rec.radio.* has its name or charter changed
|> >by the reorganization.
|> 
|> Please pick a position and stick with it. If creating
|> rec.scouting.policy changes the charter of rec.scouting, then creating
|> rec.radio.amateur.* changes the charters of every other rec.radio
|> group, for exactly the same reason.
|> 

No!  Not unless the proposers intended it to!  If there were a
group called rec.radio.soap-operas, how would creating rec.radio.amateur.*
change its charter?  What discussions would no longer be welcomed
in rec.radio.soap-operas because of the creation of rec.radio.amateur.*?

...

|> 
|> >The users guide currently tells readers that if they see an RFD posted
|> >in a newsgroup they read, they should read that RFD regardless of
|> >what the subject line says. 
|> 
|> That is a valid statement of fact.
|> 
|> >If my changed policy were to go into
|> >effect, the users guide would 
|> 
|> Until you start writing these things, don't tell me what it would say.
|> 
It's immaterial who would write the new users guide.  If there
were a new policy, there would have to be a new users guide
reflecting the new policy.  Someone would have to write it.

It makes sense for the proposer of the new policy to suggest
what documentation affected by that new policy should say.

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

In article <1993Jan04.172717.43474@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <1hi13aINNitm@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

Rob, I admire your persistence, but John is much like Dave Hayes: the more you
argue, the more he argues, and you'll never, ever, ever win.

>|> >|> Like I said, "all at once". 
>|> >They can be done all at once with two ballots.
>|> Which new definition of the phrase "at once" are you using?
>This means that the ballots go out on the same day
>and the voting periods are identical.
>Exactly the same result as if several votes go out
>on a single ballot.

I still don't buy this. You're completely ignoring that the multiple ballots
might well be (I think they are) more confusing for the voter, as well as more
work for the vote taker (his work goes up as the number of total ballots
received, not the number of votes). It's _NOT_ the same result.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_

In article <8310@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan04.172717.43474@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >In article <1hi13aINNitm@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
|> 
|> Rob, I admire your persistence, but John is much like Dave Hayes: the more you
|> argue, the more he argues, and you'll never, ever, ever win.
|> 

Well perhaps I shouldn't try to persuade John specifically.

Given that Usenet is often described as an anarchy,
it's not clear to me exactly what procedure I should
follow to change the current guidelines, or whom
exactly I ought to be trying to persuade.  

My postings are directed not at anyone in particular but at n.a.p at large ---
all those who claim to be interested in policy.  I moved
this discussion here from news.groups after learning that
(a) the r.m.s. vote which led to all this was a *fait accompli*
    and valid under the current rules
(b) constructive suggestions for changing these rules (but
    not for applying them retroactively) would be welcome
(c) on the news.admin.policy newsgroup

By the way, I am glad to see that you use the same quotation
prefix which I use (and which John Stanley objects to).  I'm not the only one.

|> >|> >|> Like I said, "all at once". 
|> >|> >They can be done all at once with two ballots.
|> >|> Which new definition of the phrase "at once" are you using?
|> >This means that the ballots go out on the same day
|> >and the voting periods are identical.
|> >Exactly the same result as if several votes go out
|> >on a single ballot.
|> 
|> I still don't buy this. You're completely ignoring that the multiple ballots
|> might well be (I think they are) more confusing for the voter, as well as more
|> work for the vote taker (his work goes up as the number of total ballots
|> received, not the number of votes). It's _NOT_ the same result.

What I wrote above was a narrower argument --- namely that
multiple votes can be passed "all at once" (that is, at the same time)
even though they are on multiple ballots.  I wasn't
addressing your objections.

I don't think multiple ballots are any more difficult for the
vote taker.  Many vote takers count ballots by automated software,
and therefore in that case the vote taker's work is O(1).

In my experience as a voter, smaller ballots are simpler.
Often I could just ignore entire ballots rather than
reading all of a long ballot and then abstaining on
the unnecessary questions.

While occasionally it could work the other way, I think
the benefits of (1) guaranteeing subject lines which are
both clear and short and (2) avoiding situations like
the rms vote outweigh any deficiencies. 

Do we have logs of past votes?  Can we determine what
fraction of the last, say, 100 renaming ballots would
have had to be split under my proposed rules?


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

In article <1993Jan04.213001.63448@watson.ibm.com>, strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> In article <8310@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> 
|> By the way, I am glad to see that you use the same quotation
|> prefix which I use (and which John Stanley objects to).  I'm not the only one.
|> 

Oops.  I read the wrong lines.  The above is wrong.

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

In article <8310@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.172717.43474@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>>In article <1hi13aINNitm@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
>Rob, I admire your persistence, but John is much like Dave Hayes: the more you
>argue, the more he argues, and you'll never, ever, ever win.

You should talk, Zippy.

Joel "Abusing pinheads since 1967" Furr
jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu