🚀 go-pugleaf

jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes:

>> Let's deal in some facts, if you please.

> Yes, let's. But let's deal with all of the facts, not just the ones
> that are convenient for you, OK?

Well, while we're setting rules, let's not make unilateral decisions on
just what is important about posting software to comp.sources.unix, OK?

>> How long has Rich been moderating c.s.u? And, in that time, how many
>> packages have been released?

>> To answer my own questions...

>> [a calculation that purports to show that since Rich took over, there
>> have been an average of two packages per week posted to
>> comp.sources.unix.]

I can't imagine what, outside of kindergarden level innumeracy, could
have prompted you to choose the term "purports"; either you understand
the calculation, or you do not.  I'm pretty sure my twelve year old
daughter could walk you through it, if it gave you that much trouble.

>> What's *wrong* with you people? *Two* "fixes" a week aren't
>> sufficient? Are you addicted to a constant flow of free code, or
>> what?

> Are you really trying to claim that an average calculation over the
> entire life of comp.sources.unix (with Rich moderating it) is a valid
> indication of the actual *current* status of the newsgroup? That's
> completely ridiculous.

Well, my site's undergone a hardware upgrade this year, but the last
article count I saw for comp.sources.unix was 501, so at least that many
postings have hit the group. That doesn't at all look to me like the
signs of an idle moderator.  And, strangely enough, there's an article
currently online in the group for each day of this site's expire time.
Looks like he's just been _pouring_ sources out, to me.

> Your analysis completely ignores the most important issues being
> discussed here.

Unfortunately, that judgement of "importance" is not widely shared.

> First of all, we've been discussing the chronological (as opposed to
> qualitative -- I don't think anyone here has challenged Rich's ability
> to do a very good job on the submissions that *do* get posted)
> consistency of Rich's moderation.

As was noted by another poster in response to the article with the graph,
what we see is that the group's output has _always_ been bunchy.  All we
have now is a bunch of newbies who just noticed the fact and are trying to
pretend they've discovered heliocentrism, or something.

> Over the last couple of years, it has become completely impossible for
> an author to know, after submitting something to comp.sources.unix,
> whether it would take a week, a month, or even a year for the
> submission to actually be posted to the newsgroup. Your calculations
> ignore this.

Impatient authors have and have always had a multitude of alternate
publication paths. Some have used them. My site was using trn off an ftp
site before it came out in c.s.u. It is a fair assumption that authors
who wait patiently for their software to be posted do so because they
are willing to trade time for the imprimateur of quality Rich's
excellent moderation gives the software published through c.s.u.

Since the main value of the group is its reputation, and that depends
entirely on the diligence and probity of the moderator, proposals to go
to a multi-moderator system or to replace the moderator are quite beside
the point. I can think of perhaps three other people on the net I'd
trust with the job, and none of them have stepped forward to offer
assistance.

> Second, as I have pointed out in another message, your calculations
> are only relevant if you make the base assumption that the number of
> submissions to the newsgroup hasn't risen since Rich took over. But,
> in fact, it is almost certainly the case that the number of
> submissions *has* risen, in which case the output of the newsgroup
> should *also* rise; if it does not, then the inevitable affect is
> longer delays, which is exactly what is being protested.

Bingo!  We have a scarce and irreplaceable resource, and aside from the
false to fact character assassination postings here, he is also being
abused by overuse.  Are there really that many people on the net who
write software _worth_ the quality of review that sees it published in
comp.sources.unix?

> Third, as I have pointed out in another message, it is ludicrous to
> try to claim two packages are posted to c.s.u per week, when six of
> the last twelve months have seen *no packages at all* posted to the
> newsgroup, or at least, not according to what's in the archives on
> uunet.uu.net.

You slept through your statistics classes, or you took a pass when
common sense was handed out? That is the biggest set of logical
contradictions yet posted in this pile of newbie nattering. If there are
sixteen packages posted every other month, or eight per month, the
average is the same.

If you have a point aside from your first amendment right to bitch in
print at length, you have yet to make it.

Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>