From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Organization: Twin Sun Inc, El Segundo, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:48:18 GMT

Quoting from the RFD:

   It is intended mainly for the discussion of technical issues in an
   informal, undergraduate manner,

There's no need for a separate group for this.  Most comp.* newsgroups
are sophomoric at best....

But seriously, this newsgroup sounds like it has far too broad a
charter.  Will the group really be trying to cover all the comp.*
hierarchy at the undergraduate level in one newsgroup?  That's
far too much territory.

   as opposed to many other "comp.*" groups, where the discussion is
   often far too obscure,...

I sense that the proposers feel intimidated by the ``regular'' comp.*
groups, and want to start a new group for novices, sort of like
training wheels for a bicycle.  That sounds like a fond hope, but would
it really work in practice?  Any newsgroup quickly reaches a level of
discourse, and there will always be some people who are intimidated by
whatever level of discourse is reached.  Also, there are already
several introductory newsgroups like comp.unix.questions -- won't the
undergrad group be duplicating their functions?  What's the point of a
separate group for _undergraduates_, as opposed to other people who
want to know things at an introductory level?

   While the group is intended for mainly undergraduate postings,
   Postgraduate and even non-academics will be welcome to post short
   messages!

This sounds worse and worse -- almost like a club for undergraduates.
``Outsiders are welcome, as long as you don't say much.''  Give me a break!

  The readers of the group should be willing to help other
  undergraduates, and any requests for help are hopefully intended to
  be independent student projects.

This sounds naive.  How will we be able to tell (from a distance!)
whether a request for help is a genuine independent project, or an
attempt to cheat?  Especially since news articles are so easily forged?


Overall, the proposed charter is far too broad, and should be tightened
up significantly.  Don't try to cover all aspects of computer
languages, operating systems, networking, ethical issues, computer law,
etc.  Limit the charter to issues specifically related to computer
science undergraduate education, e.g. what sort of computing support
colleges and universities should give undergraduates, or the difference
between cheating and helping one's fellow students.  Discourage bull
sessions about any and all computer-related subjects -- that's what the
rest of comp.* is for.

The name `comp.cs.undergrad' is a poor choice, since `cs' is redundant
after `comp' and is a new hierarchy.  Why not use the comp.edu
hierarchy instead?  `comp.edu.undergrad' would be a better name, and
will help focus the charter.

Finally, try out the charter in an alt group first, so that we can see
whether this sort of thing would really work in a global environment.
I realize that many sites don't get `alt', but enough do for it to be a
valid experiment.  There is already a newsgroup there for the more
``experienced'' grad students (alt.grad-student.tenured), so there's
precedent for this.  Once there is a successful alt group, there will
be a much better case for a comp.edu.undergrad group.