linux automonitoring straw poll results - 491 valid ballots

 Yes   No : Group
---- ---- : -------------------------------------------
 284  189 : comp.os.linux.misc
 315  165 : comp.os.linux.help
 333  146 : comp.os.linux.admin
 317  155 : comp.os.linux.development

This straw poll had more respondents than 95% of all newsgroup
votes... As this is a straw poll and I'm just the polltaker, I am not
even going to try to analyze what the results "mean."  I suspect we'll
see lots of that in news.groups over the next few weeks.  However, I
will note that by Guidelines result methods, both col.admin and
col.development automonitoring would "pass" if this had been an
official vote.  -- Ron

This vote was conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
questions only contact rdipp...@qualcomm.com.  For questions about the
proposal contact Ian Jackson <i...@cam-orl.co.uk>.

PROPOSAL (Ian)

[ Ian indicated during the polling period that Subject keywords would
be acceptable for software that couldn't handle Keywords headers.
However, I haven't tampered any with the original polling text. -- Ron ]

 I propose to set up an auto-response daemon which will scan the
 newsgroups  comp.os.linux.misc, .help, .development and .admin.

 It will send email to the posters of any messages which either
  (a) do not include one of a set or recognised keywords in the
      Keywords line or
  (b) are crossposted between two or more of the groups listed above,
      without a Followup-To header being used to direct followups
      into no more than one of those groups (plus perhaps one or more
      groups outside the comp.os.linux hierarchy).

 The email will be a brief, friendly introduction to the newsgroup in
 question and the hierarchy in general - probably based on Matt Welsh's
 introduction to the comp.os.linux hierarchy and my daily postings in
 comp.os.linux.misc and .help.

 It will say where the FAQs are, why to read them, and where to get
 them.

 It will also say why the message has been sent to the user, and give a
 brief explanation of why Keywords are a good thing and/or why
 crossposting is a bad thing (as appropriate).

 I would determine the set of allowable keywords with assistance from
 the Linux community; I expect the set to change quite frequently, and
 there to be a dozen or two at most.

 The existence of my daemon would be documented in a regular posting to
 the groups (preferably as part of an existing regular posting).

 Note that this proposal will NOT prevent anyone from posting and does
 not involve marking the groups as moderated.                        

 I hope to be able to provide an email-to-news gateway that will be  
 allow users with retarded software to post with Keywords lines.      

 RATIONALE (Ian)

 During the recent discussion in news.groups regarding my original
 proposal to moderate col.* using a program, several people suggested
 that perhaps many of the "poor" posts do not come from first-time
 posters, and that therefore it would be sufficient to send email to
 posters whose postings did not have one of a set of approved keywords.

 Doing so would allow experienced users to start using killfiles to
 read only postings they believe they would find interesting, based on
 keywords, since any users posting without such keywords would be
 informed by the daemon that and why their posting might not get the
 attention they would wish for it.

Since the Ack List is huge and this is a Straw Poll, I'm just going to
post it to news.groups as a followup so it won't swap those of you who
follow the Linux groups via modem. -- Ron

As I said during the discussion period, I've been convinced that
Subject line tags are more technically feasible than Keywords at the
moment (shame on you, newsreader authors).

I'll therefore arrange for the monitoring program to expect Subject
lines of the form
  Subject: [keyword] rest of subject
(this is used in several other groups).

I'd like your input on the list of Keywords the daemon would *not*
send mail about.  I'll shortly be posting in news.groups a list of
possible keywords to stimulate discussion; any suggestions here or by
email would be welcome.

Note that discussion of this probably belongs in news.groups;
comp.os.linux.misc is crowded enough already.

Gives you a mandate to do what? People don't take straw polls seriously
enough for them to count. If the status of the linux groups is to be
changed, it must done the same way other changes (splitting) are. And
aren't you being presumptous about giving yourself the right to apply
rules or not!

This whole damn business about trying to control the linux groups is just
plain silly. Probably every c.o.l.* reader feels that the groups are over-
crowded but most people find personal solutions (a good newsreader comes
to mind) instead of trying to impose a solution on everybody.

Nobody has to read everything in c.o.l.*. Choose subjects you want to follow
and let others make their choices.

: Note that discussion of this probably belongs in news.groups;
: comp.os.linux.misc is crowded enough already.

No, it is not too crowded for this unless you want to pull a fast one.

: : I think that this gives me a fairly clear mandate to go ahead; I'm not
: : going to apply the overmajority rules that apply to group creation.

I am guilty of not paying attention to this straw poll.
But clearly if something on a large scale is going to be
done, it should have an 'official' vote instead of a
straw poll.  I think too many people were ignoring
this debate (I was).  (I know, the straw vote did
have a large turnout)  

People need a place to talk about things .. important and
not so important.  Newsgroups are that place.  With Linux,
it seems the serious stuff is in the mailing lists.  This
is right since mailing lists are more complicated to access
than newsgroups.  Newsgroups have to stay simple and open,
or it's going to hurt Linux.  'They're a bunch of
anal-retentives who yell at you for posting.' is what people
will think, if not say.

Let newsgroups be newsgroups. And let people post what they
want.

Yup.  A good newsreader does wonders.  Also, KILL files are an
excellent way to trim down those pesky, unwanted articles.  With a
good KILL file, I can remove probably 1/2 the stuff that I don't want
to read in the high traffic groups.

I personally don't understand why the c.o.l.* groups are any more
special that some of the other high traffic groups.  To my knowledge,
they aren't trying to automate their groups.  Why should it happen
here?

An "unmoderated" newsgroup is exactly that:  unmoderated.

Thank ghod the country isn't run by such "clear" mandates (or is it?).  I
cannot understand why Ian figures the results of this straw poll gives him
the go-ahead to start this thing -- unless that's all he wanted to see in
the first place, so that's how he interprets the results.

I do not mean to denegrate the fine work of the many folks behind the
Linux project, both programming and docs/faqs.  These folks have all done
good jobs (though the docs can admittedly be better, no?), and we would
not be here today if it were not for their tireless, giving efforts.  But
you cannot hold the keys to the castle forever; it's time to let this baby
loose on the world.

But I keep getting the nagging feeling that what's clearly needed here is
a new, moderated newsgroup:

        comp.os.linux.don't.bother.me.you.useless.newbie.scum

Ian, if I were you, I would try out the idea on the group in which
the margin was largest. (I'm sorry this was not .help - I always feel
pity for all those questions that have *no* reaction. Even an automailer
giving the location of the FAQs would be better than nothing.)

Then, after the flames had died down, you could think about it again,
and perhaps try it on another group. Or stop it.

For the other two groups, it was still landslide type results by
the proportion (if considered in the real world) and by the
number (if considered in relation to other usenet straw polls).

Now notice that he isn't actually changing the group a whit --
he is just sending out mail.  This is something he could do
even _without_any_support_whatsoever_ and which someone
less responsible is _already_doing_.  (I say less responsible
because the current mailer doesn't answer mailed queries about
_his_ unsolicited email, so it isn't even possible to figure out
what you should do to avoid the mail in the future.)

If this really disturbs you, you have several choices:

(1) Keep adding to the noise by restating your opposition.
(2) Do something about it.  

My suggestion would be that you start an RFD for
comp.os.linux.*.mod, so that people dead set against getting
mail just because they haven't even even read the daily post
can stick to the current group, and people tired of the
noise can move to the new one.  Since Ian's original proposal
was for a moderated group, you could probably convince him
to ignore the unmoderated version once there was a moderated
version out there.

And yes, there is precedent for moderated/unmoderated pairs,
though they're usually in either sci or soc.(controversial).

I've set Followup-To to poster, because this really isn't
appropriate for news.groups any longer, and it isn't directly
about linux.  It is a flame war.

No, sir, you have NO such madate except in your own imagination!  You
have the results of a straw poll which suggests a possible trend and
NOTHING MORE!  

IW> As I said during the discussion period, I've been convinced that
IW> Subject line tags are more technically feasible than Keywords at the
IW> moment (shame on you, newsreader authors).
IW>
IW> I'll therefore arrange for the monitoring program to expect Subject
IW> lines of the form
IW>   Subject: [keyword] rest of subject
IW> (this is used in several other groups).
IW>
IW> I'd like your input on the list of Keywords the daemon would *not*
IW> send mail about.  I'll shortly be posting in news.groups a list of
IW> possible keywords to stimulate discussion; any suggestions here or by
IW> email would be welcome.
IW>
IW> Note that discussion of this probably belongs in news.groups;
IW> comp.os.linux.misc is crowded enough already.

Too right this list is crowded, crowded with your presumptions and
assinine interventions!  

IW> --
IW> Ian Jackson  i...@cam-orl.co.uk ..!uknet!cam-orl!iwj  These opinions are m
IW> 2 Lexington Close, Cambridge CB4 3LS.                        + 44 223 575
IW> Cambridge University Computer Laboratory, New Musems Site.   + 44 223 334
IW> Email also via: ijack...@nyx.cs.du.edu   PGP2 public key available on req

I think that Ian's simple system of sending mail to anyone who doesn't
use subject lines of the form
        Subject: [keyword] ...
is a good one. Each newsgroup would have its own list of keywords. I think
that someone would think twice before posting something inappropriately
if they had to use an appropriate keyword to do so. If it doesn't work, it
doesn't work, and that will be that. Give it a shot.

Using a keyword in the subject line would help in the following ways:
        1. It would allow readers to automatically select or reject
           postings based on keyword. For example, I might choose to only
           select postings about NET-2 questions; if there is a keyword
           corresponding to NET-2 this is easily done.

        2. Because of the above selection mechanism, we wouldn't need to
           create multiple newsgroups for these varied topics.

        3. Random garbage such as the ``GOD SPEAKS ON LINUX'' thread could
           be filtered out---either by Ian's mail to the individual making
           the post, or at the newsreader level, through use of a killfile.

        4. Because readers will be able to filter posts by keyword, they
           can concentrate on only those posts that interest them. THEREFORE,
           it will be easier for questions to be filtered from the junk,
           and therefore, those thousands of newbies who aren't being helped
           by c.o.l.* WILL be helped.

It sounds like too many people are forgetting why we have c.o.l.* (especially
.help) in the first place---newsgroups to provide help and support for Linux.
I'm more than willing to sacrifice the complete OPENNESS of these newsgroups
in order to drastically increase the QUALITY of them. If you want to post
garbage, there are several thousand other newsgroups---including c.o.l.misc---
to post it to.

Ian isn't talking about moderating the group---he's talking about enforcing
a subject line convention that will make the groups MUCH easier to read and
to reply to. In fact, Ian's system WON'T EVEN BLOCK postings that
DON'T follow the convention. The most that it will do is send friendly
e-mail to someone who doesn't follow the convention and explain to them
that they should use it in the future. End of story.

This subject line convention is just that---a convention. And this convention
will make c.o.l.* more readable to those who can respond to the many questions
on these newsgroups. As it is now, c.o.l.* is almost completely ineffective.
Very few people get help from c.o.l.h; it is just as bad as when comp.os.linux
was the only newsgroup.

So, what will it be? Are you willing to give up a little bit of freedom
in order to increase the quality of c.o.l.* as a whole? Or are you going
to be adamant, and demand that the newsgroups remain completely unmonitored,
although that completely nullifies the potential usefulness of the group?
Is it worth the tradeoff to simply use an approved keyword in your subject
line? Is it so much to ask?

Just imagine the number of people who could be helped by this. Imagine
how many more newcomers could learn to use and appreciate Linux if they
were able to get a helping hand from the newsgroups. Those newsgroups
are the official Linux support hotline. Right now they look like a huge
bin of disorganized papers with no continuity and no way for people to
effectively read and reply to problems. I just don't understand why people
are so opposed to helping out new users.

Hey! That's great! I could not have put it better myself...

: ...
: >I think that this gives me a fairly clear mandate to go ahead; I'm not
: >going to apply the overmajority rules that apply to group creation.

: Really?  I came to exactly the opposite conclusion!

Well, perhaps no conclusion at all.  It's not Ian's place. (I hope that's
his name).

: >
: >As I said during the discussion period, I've been convinced that
: >Subject line tags are more technically feasible than Keywords at the
: >moment (shame on you, newsreader authors).

: Sure, let's change the whole way usenet works for the sake of this shmuck.

I did NOT see his post with a Keywords line..... or [things]

: >I'll therefore arrange for the monitoring program to expect Subject
: >lines of the form
: >  Subject: [keyword] rest of subject

: A real pity this scheme ain't good enough for his own posts.

Oh sorry, you picked up on that too!

: >Note that discussion of this probably belongs in news.groups;

: Logical.  Since maybe nobody will notice it until "too late" there. :)

: An "unmoderated" newsgroup is exactly that:  unmoderated.

: Get a life!
: --
: ml...@bnr.ca   Mark Lord       BNR Ottawa,Canada       613-763-7482

Who gives him the right to discourage others?  It's one thing to ignore
the people who refuse to read the FAQ's, but there are those that are
in the know that will ask stupid questions from time to time.  The
standard response to this self appointed moderator should be to send
notes to his postmaster saying that he's doing an intentional mass-flame
campaign against people with less experence.

Bad news.  Perhaps I would re-think the thing if I were him.  Linus
intended this to be for everyone, and this is very contrary to that.

Let's put it this way. Say that Linus, for some reason, were to include
each and every patch into the kernel, regardless of whether it worked,
whether it did anything useful, whether it broke other code, or whatever.
You mailed him a kernel patch, and he included it, and that was that.
Then, the Linux kernel really would be for everyone, wouldn't it? That
would be great, right?

Wrong. It would be seriously and hideously broken. Nobody would be able to
use the system at all. Instead, Linus does filter out these things, and
tries to ensure that not only will new features work, but that also they'll
be useful to enough people to warrant inclusion in the kernel. And, much
of the time, people don't get their patches in the standard kernel.
Maybe it's not entirely "fair", but it works.

This is a lot like the problem at hand, the problem with the newsgroups.
While you folks are getting all huffed about Ian's "right" to make this
proposal, a lot of people are getting seriously frustrated because of the
lack of effectiveness of the c.o.l.* hierarchy. I don't think that a
week passes without someone proposing some kind of newsgroup split or
other means to fix this broken system.

The point of the poll was to see if the bulk of the c.o.l.* readership
considered his proposal to be favourable. The bulk of the readership
did (and if you didn't vote, you have nobody to blame but yourself). It
was made quite clear that this proposal would go through if this vote
gave a favourable response, and it did.

And I don't understand what point you're trying to make, either.

The "straw poll" labeling resulted in a very selective response to the survey.
Many people ignored it (due to the subject line) as being yet-another-waste-of-
bandwidth.

It would only be an experiment anyway. If it doesn't work, then we can
go back to the old method. We don't learn anything if we don't give it
try. Don't you at least want a chance to say "I told you so!"?

I cannot read c.o.l.help anymore because there are too many posts
covering a very wide range of topics, most of which I am not interested
in. I tried using a kill file, but it doesn't help because 2/3 of the
posts are new posts. There are very few Re:'s. Therefore, there are
questions that maybe I could answer that will not get answered. One
thing I noticed before abandoning c.o.l.help was that it seemed that it
was newbies helping the other newbies, often with bad or misinformed
advice. It seemed all the pros have "checked out" of that behemoth of a
newsgroup.

Isn't this idea at least worth a try?

Interesting you should mention the skiing disaster.  This is another
case where someone charged in and re-arranged the lists; fixing a
problem that didn't exist and, in the process, serving to segregate
three disparate groups (nordic, alpine, and boarders) when greater
cohesion is needed.  All of this re-organization is really going to
useful when the season ends in the northern hemisphere (where most of
the traffic originates) and traffic drops to near-zero levels.

JI> For the other two groups, it was still landslide type results by
JI> the proportion (if considered in the real world) and by the
JI> number (if considered in relation to other usenet straw polls).
JI>
JI> Now notice that he isn't actually changing the group a whit --
JI> he is just sending out mail.  This is something he could do
JI> even _without_any_support_whatsoever_ and which someone
JI> less responsible is _already_doing_.  (I say less responsible
JI> because the current mailer doesn't answer mailed queries about
JI> _his_ unsolicited email, so it isn't even possible to figure out
JI> what you should do to avoid the mail in the future.)
JI>
JI> If this really disturbs you, you have several choices:
JI>
JI> (1) Keep adding to the noise by restating your opposition.
JI> (2) Do something about it.  

And stating my opposition *is* part of "[doing] something about it."
Several posts here make it clear people sat on their hands during the
straw poll and you can expect further statements of opposition.  If
that bothers you, tough.

JI>
JI> My suggestion would be that you start an RFD for
JI> comp.os.linux.*.mod, so that people dead set against getting
JI> mail just because they haven't even even read the daily post
JI> can stick to the current group, and people tired of the
JI> noise can move to the new one.  Since Ian's original proposal
JI> was for a moderated group, you could probably convince him
JI> to ignore the unmoderated version once there was a moderated
JI> version out there.

Wait a minute, since when do you or Ian Jackson have even the
slightest claim to define how the lists should be run?  If you want to
say, in effect, the signal to noise ratio here stinks, fine.  Go right
ahead.  If enough people want to do something about the issue, they
will.  But no one person, myself included, has any right to impose
their will on the lists; this is a collective experience.

JI> And yes, there is precedent for moderated/unmoderated pairs,
JI> though they're usually in either sci or soc.(controversial).

That's nice.  This isn't sci.geo.meteo or soc.x.  

JI> I've set Followup-To to poster, because this really isn't
JI> appropriate for news.groups any longer, and it isn't directly
JI> about linux.  It is a flame war.
JI>
JI> _________
JI>     |    
JI>  jJ |    Take only memories.            j...@eecs.umich.edu
JI> \__/     Leave not even footprints.     jewe...@pitt.edu
JI>

Only if that's what you want to see.

Rather than the odd article there would be whole threads without
keywords; if the "experienced" users just go ahead and add to them the
users' killfiles (which is what the keywords are there for) won't be
able to get a grip.

The message sent to people posting keywordless followups will probably
be slightly different to that send to people posting new threads.

Quite frankly, the bandwidth is not your problem, it's mine: if the
machine I'm sending the email from can cope there's no problem.