From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Usage of alt.dcom.telecom
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:45:40 GMT

In <9209011756.AA19589@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> asa@STL-09SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin on 9000) writes:

>I had seen passing references to alt.dcom.telecom in the Telecom Digest
>(the mailed version of comp.dcom.telecom) but I never had a way to see
>it; [until lately.]
>      I took a look at the postings in there, and am now somewhat
>confused. They read just about exactly the same as postings in 
>comp.dcom.telecom, and a couple were actually duplicates of ones
>I had read over there. 

About the only misstatement you made is in the preceeding paragraph;
the "mailed" version of c.d.t is Telecom Digest, lathough it's probably
more accurate to say thet c.d.t is the netnews version of TD.

>So I am wondering just what the purpose of alt.dcom.telecom is. Why
>split this topic into groups in two different heirarchies? 

Most of the guesses you make are either spot on, or 90% right.  Alt.d.t
happened some months ago when a particular writer began quite vocal
complaints (I honestly forget who it was) about PAT's editorial
policies and methods, claiming systematic prejudice, wanton suppression
of opposing viewpoints, etc.  This degenerated (as is the nature of 
such things) rapidly into namecalling, heated email among many
writers, etc., and at one point PAT professed disgust with the
entire netnews scheme and threatened to discontinue the c.d.t
dissemination of TD.  Amid the wails of pain and terror from those
who would miss c.d.t, or find it more difficult to read, the Other Guy
created a.d.t as an ALTernative forum.  As things ended up, PAT never
killed c.d.t, the Other Guy (I think) has faded away, and we still
have a.d.t.

To be scrupulously fair, once the Other Guy had expressed discontent
with PAT's editorial policies, people entered the argument on both sides.
Many (or at least the most vocal) support PAT, and point to the much
larger job that TD is than it once was.  The Other Camp held variously
that: if PAT can't cut it, give it to someone else; PAT's using his own
prejudices instead of editorial impartiality; PAT can't cut it because 
he's always busy writing irritating and irrelavant Moderator's Notes; 
TD was so much better in the JSol days that former contributors have
been driven off.  (Note that I'm not claiming any of these claims are
necessarily true, I'm just trying to give a fair recap.)


Now that you know where it came from, what do we do with it?

>1) To discuss things the moderator of Telecom won't allow in there.

Sometimes.  Rarely, but sometimes.

>2) To expand on or draw out a topic that first appeared in Telecom
>(c.d.t) byt that the moderator there has cut off. (Since Pat has far
>more submissions than he can use, he periodically dumps the queue
>of back traffic.)

Again, rarely.  TD tends toward (IMO) more "articles" than discussion,
(like RISKS, unlike rec.guns, to cite two other moderated groups), and
the discussions that do drag on tend to either be on subject, and thus
eligible, or holy wars (which PAT tends to squelch after a few represen-
tative articles.)

>3) To avoid the moderator for personal or principle reasons. (Some
>people might dislike the concept of "moderating" a newsgroup and thus
>want to participate in unmoderatoed fora only, or others might have a
>grudge against Pat.)

That's how it came about, but I think very little of it's use is that
today.  Such people are likely to be sending Category 1 things anyway.

>Are any of these the real reason for the existence of a.d.t? Should we all 
>use a.d.t as a "mirror" of c.d.t? That is, send any submissions to *both*
>groups as a routine?

Nooooo!  No, no, no.  At one time, it was Pat's policy to automatically
bounce anything crossed to a.d.t; even if he's not doing that any more,
it's a bad idea: the readers of a.d.t who *don't* read TD can probably
be counted on the fingers of one thumb.

>                      Or should we use a.d.t as a "fall-back" for c.d.t
>submissions -- that is, send things to c.d.t as usual, but then send them to
>a.d.t if they haven't appeared in c.d.t after a number of days? Or should
>a.d.t be completely independent of c.d.t and not ever contain the same
>topics or postings?

Ideally, I would say that if it's important enough to send to PAT in the
first place, then he's gonna work it in.  If you get nailed by one of the
periodic "flush"es, than reposting here might be a good idea.  It's 
probably best suited to the sort of odds and ends of lower priority
questions and random chatter that it usually has (although traffic has
been dropping off) that's clearly to bibble-bibble for TD.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: alt.dcom.telecom