From: krvw@cert.org (Kenneth R. van Wyk)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Administrative: The vote count, changes for 1993
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:50:29 GMT

On 10 December, I asked the group to vote on whether or not vendor
support questions should be allowed on VIRUS-L/comp.virus.  The
official vote is:

barnabas% scan +vl/vote/support-yes | wc -l
     122
barnabas% scan +vl/vote/support-no | wc -l
       8

Which translates to 122 in favor of allowing vendor support questions
to 8 against.

Now, before either "side" gets bent out of shape, I'd like to try to
accomodate everyone as well as I can.  Let me elaborate...  In
addition to the votes that I got, I received numerous suggestions.
Many of the people that were in favor of support questions were in
favor of them as long as they don't get carried away.  Also, most of
the people that said that they were against the questions said that
they didn't want the forum to be exclusively a support forum.
I believe that we can come pretty close to making everyone happy if we
make a compromise or two.  Here's what I suggest:

o Product-specific questions will be accepted.
o Follow-up discussions will be rejected, with the exception of
  problem resolution summaries.  Meaning, people posting product
  questions should carry subsequent related discussions on via e-mail;
  once the problem has been resolved, a summary of the solution can be
  posted to the group.  
o Summary postings will be accepted from the vendor or the original
  author of the question.  (If both are submitted, the author's will
  be accepted over the vendor's.)
o People asking these questions are encouraged to summarize and post
  the replies that they receive.

o Product announcements will be accepted, although I again request
  that contributors make every effort to announce their wares
  objectively and as non-commercially as possible (e.g., please avoid
  pricing charts, blatant commercialism, discounting structures).
  Announcements that I feel go beyond this fine (subjective) line will
  be returned to the contributor, along with an explanation.
  (BTW, I am listing this as a separate item because it is not the
  same as a product _support_ question, IMHO.  Nonetheless, many of
  you mentioned that you still want to see product announcements.)

Not every situation is going to fit neatly into the above scenario, of
course.  Also, I can't guarantee that I will reject every
support-related follow-up, but I will try.  The sorts of follow-up that
I will specifically reject include messages such as, "what version
are you running?", "did you try X?", "that product is garbage, try ABC
instead.", etc.  Please don't expect me to be an e-mail forwarder for
these postings - send them directly to the person that asked the
question.  When I reject a posting, I delete it.

I hope that the above scenario will be acceptable to most everyone.
As always, I'm open to other suggestions.


Now, on to 1993 and Volume 06.  In addition to the vote, I have
received numerous suggestions for changes to the format for 1993.
Most of the suggestions were well thought out and would benefit the
group, so I'd like to implement those which are feasible.  They
include (so far - there will probably be more to come):

o Digest ordering will be non-PC first, and then PC issues, followed
  by general discussions, reviews, etc., (as before).  The rationale
  for this is that PC questions make up by far the highest percentage
  of traffic on this group, so it is easier for the non-PC people and
  only slightly more difficult for the PC people to find the articles
  that they are interested in.  Comp.virus readers should not find
  things any easier or more difficult.
o I am going to _strongly_ recommend that anyone affiliated with an
  anti-virus vendor state so clearly in the text of every message
  submitted.  Obviously, this is impossible to police with 100%
  effectiveness.  However, I do know most of the "players" in this
  community and will politely reject postings from people that I know
  are, or are found to be, affiliated with vendors and do not disclose
  the fact in their postings.  This is not intended to bias the group
  away from vendors; indeed, vendor contributions here are (for the
  most part) greatly appreciated.  Instead, my intent is to help the
  readers be aware of whose postings they are reading.  As with other
  forums, disclaimers are quite acceptable, as long as they accompany
  a statement of affiliation.

That's all for now.  Happy holidays to all (particularly those that
are celebrating holidays 'round about now - otherwise, um, happy
solstice :-).

Cheers,

Ken

Kenneth R. van Wyk
Moderator VIRUS-L/comp.virus
Technical Coordinator, Computer Emergency Response Team
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
krvw@CERT.ORG       (work)
ken@THANG.PGH.PA.US (home)
(412) 268-7090  (CERT 24 hour hotline)