🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul13.101943.2771@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
flowers@memstvx1.memst.edu (Harry Flowers) writes:
>Actually, I think the one-way gateway *is* a political (or cultural) issue.
>There are lot's of toes to avoid stepping on when trying to merge two
>different
>styles (replace with culture or religion as appropriate).  A two-way gateway
>is not technically difficult; preserving the expected posting mechanisms is.

Those are technically solvable problems. I once had a long 3 way email
discussion with Mark Berryman and Jeff Killeen, and we convniced ourselves it
was doable. Then everyone got busy and nothing actually came of it. :-(

>For example, the VAXnotes culture eliminates duplicate posts by having
>everyone
>see the same updated database, instead of a "rarely-in-synch" distributed one.
>Are the DECUServe folks willing to see articles in this way?  Also, since news
>articles expire, FAQ's are far more frequent.  How many times is the mail
>count
>FAQ with the answer "READ/NEW" asked on DECUServe?  I wish I had a nickel for
>every time it's been on comp.os.vms.

The main thing I proposed in the aforementioned discussion was what I termed
gateway moderation, where all articles flow unchecked from decuserve to news,
but news articles reaching the decuserve machine would go to a human moderator
who would decide whether it should go to DECUServe. This, of course, requires
finding moderators, but then so does DECUServe in general. Also, this doesn't
technically require cooperation from DECUServe since any registered subscriber
would be free to post anything to a conference that met the DECUServe criteria,
even gatewayed news articles. (Of course, you'd prefer their acquiescence, at
least.)

>On the other hand, I believe that the technical-user/programmer/manager level
>is greater on the net; just my opinion from my limited experience and printed
>excerpts.  

I've noticed in recent DECUServe Journal's in the newsletters an increasing
number of times when someone mentions information from usenet. 

>The net suffers from the lack of the "official line" that DECUServe
>enjoys, though.  Some of that may be changing with greater DEC participation
>on the net.

From the newsletters, I don't see much of an official line. Of course, the way
those are formatted, you can't tell who's from DEC and who isn't.

>Those of us who freely share information (which, to me, is what DECUS *should*
>be all about), the obstacles are minor.  Getting a money-making DECUServe to
>freely share information (and give up some measure of control) will, no doubt,
>be more difficult.  I'd be very happy to be proven wrong about this.  I don't
>think a peer-to-peer two-way gateway has much political chance of success in
>the short term.

I'm afraid you're right, but even a one-way gateway gives us a base to build
from. If you start seeing a lot of answers to questions emailed to DECUServe and
reposted there, the powers that be might decide that those of us "out here"
would be a sufficiently valuable addition to their forum that we might work
something out.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA