From: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Cousin It)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:38:48 GMT
Organization: School of Hard Knocks

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
|In article <cuz.721291125@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu  
|(Cousin It) writes:
|> 	Oh well, their fault. If they can't take the time to figure
|> out what CFV/RFD means, and what it means when one of them hits your
|> newsgroup, well then, they deserve what happens. If it was unimportant
|> to them, they now see that it shouldn't have been. At least we can say
|> this vote made a lot of people aware.
|> 

|Where are they supposed to figure it out from? School of hard knocks? As  
|someone else stated (please don't make me look up where and who), CFV and  
|RFV aren't defined as acronyms in the guidelines.

	First, I was ignorant to the fact that these initials are not
defined in the guidelines. If this is indeed true, they should be put
in there. But, I learned things by reading the guidelines, by reading
newsgroups, by asking people things, etc. If you want to be aware, it
is very easy to be. It is of course much easier to be ignorant,
however.

|> 	They are unaware. It shouldn't effect us. In a perfect usenet
|> society, all people would be aware. In the real usenet world, people
|> learn to be aware.

|Maybe it should be made more clear. What's wrong with that? Too many of  
|the "ignorant horde" would vote?

	Well, I really don't think it can be more clear then RFD/CFV.
I want the "ignorant horde" not to be ignorant, and to learn. I would
like to see everyone on usenet vote on proposals. However, I feel this
can only be done thru education.

|> 	Oh, that damn subject line. What else you gonna put there. I
|> assume you have to put alt.guitar, and rec.music.makers.* (hey, its
|> where it is all going). Hell might as well ad sci.aquaria to, eh?
|> Look, a subject line is a pointer to an article, and in cases such as
|> mass reorgs, are bound to be somewhat cryptic.

|Ah! But the subject line didn't even say "reorg" which might have been a  
|nice clue. For the record, the subject line simply said:

	Because the whole proposal was more broad than a reorg. This
was, in hindsight, one of the broadest proposales I have ever seen.
And i don't mean in terms of groups created, but in terms of
complexity. [Moving groups, adding groups, for all intents and
purposes, creating a new hierarchy]

|	Subject: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups

|There's not even a verb there!

	R[equest] isn't a verb anymore? I would however, have added
one minor change. mine would have said RFD: [proposed (?)] NEW
rec.music.makers.* groups

|> All proposals to change
|> this coming from this thread have been shown to cause more trouble
|> than they are worth. The easiest thing to do is not to change the
|> guidelines to something arguably worse than what we have, but to start
|> a mass education campaign, to tell people that RFDs are important, as
|> are CFVs, and if you see them in  a group you read, then you better
|> read it, or suffer the ramifications. 

|It's certainly the easiest but it's arguable whether it's the best.  
|Education is a great idea, but perhaps some changes to the process would  
|help. I don't agree that there isn't a solution that would help more than  
|hurt.

	Education is the best. Coupling it with changes is not
neccesarily a bad idea, I just haven't seen a good proposal come out
of this yet.

   Cousin It                                     cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
          "They moralize to death, but they fail to say, 
         we're all forgotten actors in a very short play"
                     -T-Ride "Luxury Cruiser"-          
Newsgroups: news.groups