🚀 go-pugleaf

Terry, FYI, DECUServe reports to the Management Council.  And the fee is now
$75, up from the former $60.

In article <1992Aug3.173305@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
> 
> 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. :-(

I agree that this is doable.  And, DECUServe IS actively working on getting it
into place.  Even if we don't make it generally available, at least it will be
there when the climate is right :-).  Mostly it's an exercise in showing the
rest of exec what this is all about.
> 
>>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.)
> 
As Manager of Moderators on DECUServe, I can assure you, we have no shortage of
volunteers for moderator (like a waiting list for openings about 30 deep). 
Manpower is definitely not a problem.  Nor is disk space.  The only barriers
are politics, revenue and time.

I think a moderated newsgroup that gateways DECUServe (two-way) is the way to
go.  If a posting comes from a subscriber, gateway it into DECUServe NOTES.  If
from a non-subscriber, put it in the newsgroup anyway.  The question is, do we
make the newsgroup available to the subscribers?

>>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. 

I agree that the technical expertise is greater on the net - in some ways.  On
DECUServe in others.  It appears to me that DECUServe has the edge in
networking (*for DEC machines*), while the net has the edge in internals 
(just to take two areas).  The gap on internals is pretty large, however :-(.  
Thank goodness we have Jamie on DECUSERVE :-)

>>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.

What do you mean by "official line"?  We have several product managers from DEC
on DECUServe, but the net definitely has the edge for DEC techies.

>>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.

I think so.  It sounds like Jeff thinks so.  I'd say the executive committee on
DECUServe is evenly split three ways on this - for, against, don't know.  I
don't think it's going to be as difficult as you might think.  We just need
some convincing arguments as to how we are going to keep from adversely
affecting revenues.  I haven't seen anyone touch on this.  With the newsletter
being shut down because it's losing so much money, all the units having to cut
back and DECUServe one of the few units showing an increase in revenue (even 
symposia are down), unless revenue is dealt with it will be a hard sell.
-- 
   Don Roberts                   Internet:  don@beckman.com
   Beckman Instruments, Inc.     Phone:     714/961-3029
   2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX:       714/961-3351
   Fullerton, CA  92634          Disclaimer:  Blame me, not Beckman.
   People are as happy as they decide to be - A. Lincoln