In article <2mplni$...@bmerha64.bnr.ca> ml...@bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >In article <1994Mar23.023351.18...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu writes: >.. >>I'm more than willing to sacrifice the complete OPENNESS of these newsgroups
>That's Nice. I'm happy that *you* have an idea you like. >What about the other 20,000 people in this group?
I don't know. Look at the results of the poll. Most people were in favour of it. If you'd like perhaps we could have a "real" vote, which I would expect would turn out to have roughly the same results.
>>Ian isn't talking about moderating the group---he's talking about enforcing
>He's talking about a massive waste of bandwidth, that will result in an even >more massive reverse-flow of flames. Very stupid.
What's a "massive waste of bandwidth"? Please explain yourself.
>If Ian wants a moderated newsgroup, he knows the procedures for trying >to create one. This particular group is *unmoderated*.
You are not listening. Ian is NOT proposing to moderate ANYTHING. He is talking about sending e-mail asking people to use a certain convention for subject lines. I don't know how you can equate that with moderation; being a moderator I should know that they are nothing alike.
In article <2mpm9r$...@bmerha64.bnr.ca> ml...@bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >In article <1994Mar23.062159.28...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu writes: >.. >>Ian's proposal isn't going to stop ANYONE from posting ANYTHING. Please >>re-read the proposal.
>Sure it is. It is going to waste incredible email bandwidth,
How is that going to stop anyone from posting? I'm afraid that you misunderstand how the news software works.
>>But you see, right now, the newsgroups aren't helping ANYONE.
>Really? I suggest you do a little more research before making such >broad mis-assumptions as that.
My point is that if we adopted a simple subject-line convention, the overhead for implementation is MINIMAL, and it increases the overall quality of the group dramatically. Wouldn't it be nice if we could increase the effectiveness of c.o.l.h by 300% just through this simple mechanism?
Apparently you'd rather preserve the complete openness of the group, and have it turn into a perpetual trashbin, where very few people get help. That's what I can't understand.
>You could even get a preview of what >Ian would be in for if he failed to reconsider his scheme: just post >a visible request for a reply from "ANYONE" who has ever been helped >by the newsgroups..
All right, why don't I also post a request for ANYONE who posted and was not subsequently helped? I can get upwards of 100 mails a week from people who have tried asking questions on c.o.l.* but never got a reasonable response. So they turn to e-mail. Perhaps I should start soliciting mails from people who aren't getting help, archive them all, and send them to you. Would that be enough proof?
>>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, >... >Linus' kernel coordination is more analogous to a central newsserver, >which collects articles into appropriate newsgroups, ordering them and >assigning local article numbers, threads, etc..
And rejecting certain articles based on content? Wrong. Newsservers don't do that.
All of this talk about proposals, and nothing's being done to resolve the problem. We should have known better than to ask for input on the Net. Nothing ever gets fixed that way. Ian should go forth with the proposal based on the results of a poll. Flame all you want; that's never going to fix anything.
Suggestion: Let's all just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
True, Ian didn't have to even go by a vote (straw or otherwise) to start sending out email under this plan. What he does with his email is his own business. I don't see it as fascism; I just see it as an utter waste of time (and bandwidth) in an attempt to control the uncontrollable, and possibly a side effect of stifling new users with many questions.
So now that Ian's made his decision and we've all aired it out, can we all just drop this and get on with whatever it is we all do with Linux? If the "experiment" fails, then it fails. If it succeeds (though how this will be measured is pretty unquantifiable), then it succeeds. I can appreciate that Ian cares enough to take the massive amount of time (personal and cpu) to try and cut down on some of the repetitive postings; though the motives are "pure", I doubt that it will work in the real world. That's all. I'm done.
Rajappa Iyer (r...@netcom.com) wrote in article <rsiCn4uCu....@netcom.com>:
>In article <1994Mar23.023351.18...@cs.cornell.edu>, >Matt Welsh <m...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>Nobody has time to wade through the >>garbage there---even with a good killfile it's quite a task, I assure you. >Fine! So nobody *asked* you to. Or do you wish to change the way >Usenet works just because *YOU* don't have time, inclination, whatever >to wade through `garbage?' If you want to read only good stuff, either >join/create a mailing list or create a moderated newsgroup.
Unfortunately, the current setup is NOT working well in this particular case. This is a case where traditional Usenet is bursting apart at the seams, something new needs to be tried.
Sending people E-Mail which tells them about where to find information, and the conventions to use, is indeed a new step for a unmoderated newsgroup. However, it's been done for quite a while in moderated newsgroups, for incorrect submissions; if it is phrased politely and does indeed contain useful information, people don't mind getting that E-Mail.
For example, the *.answers moderation team has been sending out a standard form letter to people asking random questions on a *.answers newsgroup; you'll an extended version of it as the "How to find the right place to post (Preliminary FAQ)" in news.groups and news.groups.reviews (or in the references to this article).
I yet have to see a single negative response to these form letters, and I have seen quite a few positive ones.
It is my guess, based on this experience, that the reception of Ian's form letters will be mostly positive.
[...]
>I am opposed to a few net fascists changing the way usenet works just >because they don't agree with it on basis of a STRAW poll. If you >don't like the way the newsgroups work, why don't you have a proper >RFD and a formal vote?
To quote the creation guidelines:
# They are NOT intended as guidelines for setting USENET policy other # than group creations
In other words, there's no (formal) need to go through a RfD/CfV and all that.
This is a scheme which can be implemented quickly, without breaking any standards, with a reasonable chance of increasing the S/N ratio of Usenet, and at no risk to the structure... if it doesn't work, it can be broken off without problems. The cost, a little bit of net load, is negligable in comparison.
Don't think the newsgroup creation process determines how Usenet works. To a large part, Usenet works by people seeing that something is necessary, and then actually implementing it. If it's reasonable, other people go along. -- Thomas Koenig, i...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, i...@dkauni2.bitnet The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram.
In article <rsiCn4uCu....@netcom.com> r...@netcom.com (Rajappa Iyer) writes: >In article <1994Mar23.023351.18...@cs.cornell.edu>, >Matt Welsh <m...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>Nobody has time to wade through the >>garbage there---even with a good killfile it's quite a task, I assure you.
>Fine! So nobody *asked* you to. Or do you wish to change the way >Usenet works just because *YOU* don't have time, inclination, whatever >to wade through `garbage?'
The point here is that a lot of people don't have time. Many of those people happen to be the ones who can actually reply to postings in c.o.l.*, helping those who need it. As it is now it's very difficult for people like myself to find questions in c.o.l.* and reply to them---therefore, far fewer people are helped.
By the way, there is no way to do this at the newsreader level, otherwise I'd suggest that instead. A killfile isn't good enough. You can't automatically categorize postings by content (unless you have a reasonably good AI program). It's much easier in the long run to ask people to use a subject line convention. This will also indirectly cut down on the amount of noise present in the newsgroups, which we all can agree is a GoodThing.
>If you want to read only good stuff, either >join/create a mailing list or create a moderated newsgroup.
You're missing the point! It's not that I care about reading "good stuff", but that in order to help the people posting to c.o.l.*, I need to be able filter the postings in some way. Adopting a subject-line convention allows us to do that.
>I disagree with a lot of the perceived benefits, but that is not >germane to the issue. Usenet is bigger than the few readers who do not >care to wade through `garbage.'
"Few" readers? How many readers have time to select articles from newsgroups with traffic of several hundered articles a day? Unless you're a lifeless feeb [tm] and spend literally hours reasing USENET a day, you don't have time to do that.
>If you can't stand the heat, stay out >of the kitchen.
The heat, in this case, happens to be hotter than is reasonable for any human being to stand. As a result, the newsgroups are not nearly as effective as they can be. I'm concerned with making the newsgroups effective. A good way of doing that is to make it easier for people to read and reply to postings. The overhead is minimal; using this subject-line convention is not something that will be difficult for newcomers to be accustomed to. So, what's the problem?
I just don't understand why people would rather see c.o.l.* go to waste than agree on such a simple system that would greatly increase effectiveness. Please, answer me that. Do you really abhor the idea of having to type a keyword on your subject line? I make very few original postings to c.o.l.*; most of them are followups. Therefore, most of the time, I'd never have to worry about the subject-line convention as long as it was already being followed in the thread at hand.
>I am opposed to a few net fascists changing the way usenet works just >because they don't agree with it on basis of a STRAW poll.
"The way usenet works"? For your information, it ISN'T working.
We're trying to help here. You didn't answer my question: WHY are you opposed to this idea, given that it will help newcomers have their questions answered? What's so wrong with it? It comes down to the basic question: Are you willing to sacrifice the minimal effort required to conform to a subject-line convention, if the newsgroups as a whole---readers and posters---will be greatly helped by it?
Other newsgroups use subject line conventions, or some other kind of simple scheme that makes postings easier to follow. I don't understand what all the huff is about.
>If you >don't like the way the newsgroups work, why don't you have a proper >RFD and a formal vote?
If the technicalities of the voting are your only problem, we'll hold a formal vote. Anything to waste more time, right? I imagine that the result of a "formal" vote would be along the lines of the straw poll. I'm tired of talking about how to fix c.o.l.*, and never implementing anything. In the meantime, tons of confused newcomers are posting to c.o.l.h, and not receiving any responses. So be it.
>In case you missed the straw poll results, the majority was IN FAVOR of >this proposal.
The majority of respondants to the straw poll, that is. How about a *real* vote on the issue? Old hands like me probably just ignored the "straw" thing as a waste of bandwidth (based on the title).
>You don't even know what you're getting up in arms about.
[expletive deleted] I *do* know what I'm upset about, even if you don't.
I frequently post replies to queries by other posters in this group. A peculiarity of our corporate installation prevents me from easily using email instead, and the reponses are often of general interest.
What I object to are the numerous droppings (and waste of communications bandwidth) I would receive as email in response to my responses. The ones I receive from alt.* linux groups already (another net.facist) are bad enough, and are just about at the point of discouraging me from helping other linux enthusiasts. And this whole stinkin' proposal is in the name of "helping" folks like me. Ha!
There are numerous other groups on the net with similar traffic levels, and similar nuisance levels. Use of threaded/selective newsreaders works just fine, and still permits folks who don't regularly post to place their one question of a lifetime without fear of immediate "enforcement" from a self-appointed "moderator" of an unmoderated newsgroup. -- ml...@bnr.ca Mark Lord BNR Ottawa,Canada 613-763-7482
In article <1994Mar23.193730.9...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu writes: >In article <2mplni$...@bmerha64.bnr.ca> ml...@bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >>In article <1994Mar23.023351.18...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu writes: >>.. >>>I'm more than willing to sacrifice the complete OPENNESS of these newsgroups
>>That's Nice. I'm happy that *you* have an idea you like. >>What about the other 20,000 people in this group?
>I don't know. Look at the results of the poll. Most people were in favour of >it. If you'd like perhaps we could have a "real" vote, which I would expect >would turn out to have roughly the same results.
Highly unlikely. But sure, let's stop speculating and go for the real thing. -- ml...@bnr.ca Mark Lord BNR Ottawa,Canada 613-763-7482
In article <1994Mar23.021141.17...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes: >Ian clearly said that he would go ahead with his proposal based on the >results of the straw poll. If you didn't bother to vote NO to it, then >he does have mandate to do so.
USENET has a set of rules which predate LINUX and the zillions of people who post to the LINUX groups. None of the rules mention "straw polls" or provide for the concept of a net.fascist to come along and change the moderation status of newgroups.
And good intentions don't count ... -- John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ] @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.
In article <2mqsur$...@bmerha64.bnr.ca> ml...@bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >I frequently post replies to queries by other posters in this group. >A peculiarity of our corporate installation prevents me from easily using >email instead, and the reponses are often of general interest.
>What I object to are the numerous droppings (and waste of communications >bandwidth) I would receive as email in response to my responses.
Why would you receive e-mail for your responses? Do you understand Ian's proposal at all?
As long as you have an appropriate keyword on your subject line, you don't get e-mail from Ian's server. It's as simple as that. Unless, of course, you refuse to use a keyword. In which case you solicit the "droppings" by refusing to do so.
>The ones >I receive from alt.* linux groups already (another net.facist) are bad enough,
All right, so you define anyone who tries to exert pressure on USENET as a net.fascist. Wake up, Mark. USENET isn't a democracy.
>and are just about at the point of discouraging me from helping other linux >enthusiasts.
You don't seem to be n favour of helping anyone by opposing this proposal. You still haven't justified yourself.
>And this whole stinkin' proposal is in the name of "helping" >folks like me. Ha!
Exactly.
>There are numerous other groups on the net with similar traffic levels, >and similar nuisance levels. Use of threaded/selective newsreaders works >just fine,
No, it doesn't. If it did, I would be advocating that quite explicitly. I have already said that you can't do what we need to do on the newsreader level.
>and still permits folks who don't regularly post to place their >one question of a lifetime without fear of immediate "enforcement" >from a self-appointed "moderator" of an unmoderated newsgroup.
Mark, I strongly suggest that you go re-read Ian's proposal before you expound any more. Nothing about the proposal "enforces" anything, nor does it "moderate" the group. Apparently you very much misunderstand what he's trying to do.
John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote in article <1994Mar24.024139.4834@rpp386>:
>USENET has a set of rules which predate LINUX and the zillions of people >who post to the LINUX groups. None of the rules mention "straw polls" >or provide for the concept of a net.fascist to come along and change the >moderation status of newgroups.
Well, yes; straw polls aren't explicitly mentioned in the creation guidelines.
However, they've been around for a long time, and they have helped settle many issues below the RfD/CfV level, like group naming and details of charters. They are tested, and they work.
And just how it can be fascist to go around and ask other people's opinion, I'm not too sure. -- Thomas Koenig, i...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, i...@dkauni2.bitnet The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram.
] Suggestion: Let's all just agree to disagree and leave it at that. ] ] True, Ian didn't have to even go by a vote (straw or otherwise) to start ] sending out email under this plan. What he does with his email is his own ] business. I don't see it as fascism; I just see it as an utter waste of ] time (and bandwidth) in an attempt to control the uncontrollable, and ] possibly a side effect of stifling new users with many questions.
It's also a waste of money for some people. Remember that some people pay for receiving their mails (and it may be very expensive for some) and sending unsollicited mail to them is not a good idea IMO.
] ] Look how much noise the automonitoring proposal has generated already ] in this newsgroup. And the keyword enforcement hasn't even started ] yet!
Maybe, we should set up a monitoring program which scans the newsgroups (and some mailing lists) for posts from Ian Jackson and send him a mail telling "Warning - you may start a new flame war" :-)))
Pierre Uszynski <pie...@shell.portal.com> wrote: >In <2mki8n$...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> i...@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
[good ideas that I think Ian has already agreed to]
>5) Do not send messages for replies in a thread, only to the original >poster. There is little point in harassing people who have no control >on the thread title, especially if they are only trying to help somebody.
Why can't they control the subject?
If the question was
Subject: PLEASE HELP ME!!!
can't they edit it to:
Subject: [LILO] Re: PLEASE HELP ME!!!
This will (a) avoid the dreaded email (b) set a good example (c) make the answer useful to other people (d) possibly catch the eye of the appropriate HOWTO maintainter, so that the next version of the docs can include the answer, if it is an improvement.
_________ | jJ | Take only memories. j...@eecs.umich.edu \__/ Leave not even footprints. jewe...@pitt.edu
In article <1994Mar24.024139.4834@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1994Mar23.021141.17...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes: > >Ian clearly said that he would go ahead with his proposal based on the > >results of the straw poll. If you didn't bother to vote NO to it, then > >he does have mandate to do so.
> USENET has a set of rules which predate LINUX and the zillions of people > who post to the LINUX groups. None of the rules mention "straw polls" > or provide for the concept of a net.fascist to come along and change the > moderation status of newgroups.
> And good intentions don't count ...
This was precisely my point. While I don't doubt Ian's good intentions, I was more than a little annoyed by this backdoor circumvention of well defined USENET rules. Although, unlike others, I did vote in the straw poll, I assumed this really was a straw poll, whose results by definition don't give anyone mandate to do diddly; unless Ian (and the folks who are making this claim) are using a decidedly non-standard definition of the term "straw poll". If the supporters of this idea feel so inclined, they can call for an official vote to change whatever they want.
In article <2mqsur$...@bmerha64.bnr.ca> ml...@bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >I frequently post replies to queries by other posters in this group. >A peculiarity of our corporate installation prevents me from easily using >email instead, and the reponses are often of general interest.
>What I object to are the numerous droppings (and waste of communications >bandwidth) I would receive as email in response to my responses. The ones >I receive from alt.* linux groups already (another net.facist) are bad enough, >and are just about at the point of discouraging me from helping other linux >enthusiasts. And this whole stinkin' proposal is in the name of "helping" >folks like me. Ha!
If the original posts follow to subject keyword convention, it shouldn't affect you one bit. What's the problem? Are you going to modify the subject and take out the keywords?
>-- >ml...@bnr.ca Mark Lord BNR Ottawa,Canada 613-763-7482
john -- -- john stump (jst...@mstu41.ch.intel.com)
Dan Swartzendruber (dswa...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote in article <2msaer$...@paperboy.osf.org>:
>This was precisely my point. While I don't doubt Ian's good intentions, >I was more than a little annoyed by this backdoor circumvention of well >defined USENET rules.
I don't think this area IS covered by existing rules; if you can cite any, I'd be interested to know.
Of course, you might argue (in fact, I think you are arguing) that the creation guidelines should apply by analogy, althouth the guidelines themselves specifically reject such a notion. -- Thomas Koenig, i...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, i...@dkauni2.bitnet The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram.
In article <1994Mar23.023351.18...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes:
So, what will it be? Are you willing to give up a little bit of freedom in order to increase the quality of c.o.l.* as a whole?
Not even, Matt. He can still post anything he wants. It's just that 1) people might not read it because it doesn't have the keywords they're looking for, and 2) he'll get a piece of mail (that he can ignore) from the auto-keyword-watcher.
This is a good solution, and I thank Ian for proposing and implementing it. I, for one, will be watching for Ethernet, SLIP, and PLIP keywords.
-- -russ <nel...@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
In article <1994Mar24.032818.6...@cs.cornell.edu>, m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes: > In article <2mqsur$...@bmerha64.bnr.ca> ml...@bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >>What I object to are the numerous droppings (and waste of communications >>bandwidth) I would receive as email in response to my responses.
> Why would you receive e-mail for your responses? Do you understand Ian's > proposal at all?
> As long as you have an appropriate keyword on your subject line, you > don't get e-mail from Ian's server. It's as simple as that. Unless, of > course, you refuse to use a keyword. In which case you solicit the > "droppings" by refusing to do so.
Someone could use the same kind of argument for just about any behavior.
It's called "blaming the victim". -- Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility ditt...@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (214) 480-7313 Disclaimer: Not even my opinions. I found them by the side of the road.
John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote: : USENET has a set of rules which predate LINUX and the zillions of people : who post to the LINUX groups. None of the rules mention "straw polls" : or provide for the concept of a net.fascist to come along and change the : moderation status of newgroups. : : And good intentions don't count ...
Yes, Ian should have worked within the rules and not used the subterfuge of a "straw poll". And Ian's discarding Usenet convention such as the overmajority rule is unconscionable. Perhaps we should run our government the same way ... let the New York Times take straw polls and change the laws accordingly ...
Of course Ian has no more authority or status than the newest Usenet greenhorn even though he'd like others to believe otherwise.
In article <2msf73$...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, i...@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
> Dan Swartzendruber (dswa...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote in article <2msaer$...@paperboy.osf.org>:
> >This was precisely my point. While I don't doubt Ian's good intentions, > >I was more than a little annoyed by this backdoor circumvention of well > >defined USENET rules.
> I don't think this area IS covered by existing rules; if you can > cite any, I'd be interested to know.
> Of course, you might argue (in fact, I think you are arguing) that the > creation guidelines should apply by analogy, althouth the guidelines > themselves specifically reject such a notion.
If he doesn't in any way prevent my non-complying post from appearing in the c.o.l.* groups, you are correct. My only real complaint was that calling it a straw poll has the definite implication that the vote was only information-gathering, not for the purpose of actually changing the effective operation of the groups.
Thomas G. McWilliams (t...@netcom.com) wrote in article <tgmCn6HEG....@netcom.com>:
>Yes, Ian should have worked within the rules and not used the subterfuge >of a "straw poll".
There ARE no rules for the kind of thing which Ian proposed; we're just making them up as we go along with this precedent.
Flaming him for not adhering to the group creation guidelines, which specifically don't apply in this case, is fairly useless, IMHO.
This is a case where traditional Usenet methods are breaking down; something else needs to be tried.
>And Ian's discarding Usenet convention such as the >overmajority rule is unconscionable. >Perhaps we should run our >government the same way ... let the New York Times take straw polls and >change the laws accordingly ...
Usenet is not a democracy; far from it.
>Of course Ian has no more authority or status than the newest Usenet >greenhorn even though he'd like others to believe otherwise.
Authority... well, anybody has the authority to do what he proposed. Status is in the eye of the beholder, of course; but he is fairly well known in the Linux community for the services he has done. Let's just say I've known him from before this thread, and I respect his opinions, even if I don't always share them. -- Thomas Koenig, i...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, i...@dkauni2.bitnet The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram.
: Yes, Ian should have worked within the rules and not used the subterfuge : of a "straw poll". And Ian's discarding Usenet convention such as the : overmajority rule is unconscionable. Perhaps we should run our : government the same way ... let the New York Times take straw polls and : change the laws accordingly ...
My own response to this nonsense will be to bar Ian's site from sending mail to mine. Or, more correctly stated, my site will reject all mail from his robot.
|
