From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: To keep the r.m.s rename is _not_ elitist (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:00:24 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen):
>In article <2AFE6DA6.4DCD@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>> ...the class of people that _choose_to_know_ how the net runs, and who
>> show an interest in same by reading news.announce.newgroups.
>
>Bzzt!

Bzzt! yourself.  How rude.

>Please point me at a succinct list of documents that provide the  
>interested people with all the information necessary.

Here's the list:

    What Is Usenet?   [ hey, I wrote it, so of course I put it first :-) ]
    Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
    A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
    How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup

That should do it.

>Please see the other posts about what I think a person would need to know...

I don't care what you think a person would need to know.  I care what
he really does need to know relative to newsgroup creation, which is
the issue at hand.  The above documents well describe the process.

>> Point one: It doesn't take being "intimately familiar with net
>> guidelines" to participate in a vote.  All it takes is reading
>> news.announce.newgroups and, if a vote catches the attention, following
>> the directions found in the call for votes.  It's not brain surgery.
> 
>The key point here is "if a vote catches the attention". Obviously this  
>vote DIDN'T catch the attention of all people it would affect for a  
>variety of reasons. Let's do something positive to change that.

"A variety of reasons?"  The main reason was that they didn't read
news.annouce.newgroups!  That was the entire point of the paragraph
here quoted!  Had they read n.a.newgroups, the RFD/CFV would have
caught their attention, since they were the only articles mentioning
"music".  (I'll admit that there is room for improvement in subject
lines, but I think that this one _was_ good enough.)

>> Point two: A descriptive subject line would not have prevented this
>> after-the-fact carping.
>
>So we should drop discussing how to make subject lines and the voting  
>process clearer? Or are you just trying to be "right" here?

Can't you read?  Or are you too upset to read?  Look what I wrote:

>> Which is not to say that I oppose descriptive subject lines!
>> They are valuable.  But realize also that they are not magic.

Clear enough?

>> All they had to do was read news.announce.newgroups.  They didn't.  By
>> all objective evidence, they did _not_ care ... enough.
>
>The guidelines already state that the proposal should be posted in the  
>affected groups.

Which it was.

>One shouldn't have to read news.announce.newgroups to know of a vote
>affecting their group.

They didn't have to read n.a.newgroups to know -- even Dave knew about
the vote, and he didn't read n.a.newgroups.  But reading n.a.newgroups
reduces the chance that you'll accidentally miss a vote you'll care
about.  For one thing, having low volume, it can be expired slower, so
you won't miss RFDs and CFVs just because you were away for a weekend.

>> There is no cure for _intentional_ ignorance.
>
>Proving "_intentional_ ignorance" is difficult. Why even bother when we  
>can constructively do something to make the process better?

Constructiveness is my middle name.  But trying to invalidate the
r.m.s vote is _not_ constructive.  I wish you (and Dave) would stop.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator