From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:56:51 GMT

baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>I'm sure you can find counterexamples (maybe you *are* a
>counterexample), but it seems to me that there is a pretty broad
>USENET consensus (among the knowledgeable) that one should read the
>appropriate documents and take a little time familiarizing oneself
>with the conventions and procedures of USENET before posting,
>particularly to administrative groups concerned with the net's
>configuration.

That may have been workable a few years ago, but the USENET consensus
you describe doesn't actually represent more than a handfull of people
in comparison with readership surveys. Lots of sites do NOT GET news.groups,
and hence do not get "the net consensus". Some users have no idea
that conventions and procedures exist (especially if they read ALT).
What is so wrong with erring on the side of caution and being as clear
as it hurts to be?

>Does the opinion of this consensus group count for more than the
>collective opinion of all those freshmen and BBS "hackers" [used in
>its semi-deleterious sense] who think it's OK to just post messages
>with trivial and basic questions to a worldwide audience that is
>trying to read the details of the aforesaid network configuration?  My
>opinion is Yes, it does.

Are we now debating who does and does not have a right to express an
opinion and participate in net.politics, by virtue of current or
chosen life standards? That sounds pretty elitist to me. Are you 
sure that's what you wanted to convey?

>A great deal of effort has gone into providing the swiftest and most
>concise possible introduction to the conventions of this network.

I'm not invalidating that at all. I'm merely suggesting that it is still
insufficient and vague and difficult to access for those who do not know
they should even access it.

>This thread was started when someone responded tersely and annoyed-ly
>to some dolt who decided it was easier for him to post the question
>"What does CFV stand for?" and sit back and wait for replies than to
>do an extremely minimal amount of research on his own and educate
>himself. 

"Some Dolt"...hmmm...are you a system administrator and do you have
users? Do you call them dolts? Some people aren't as good as we are 
about ferreting out relavent documentation. I have come to this conclusion
after adminstering computers for quite a number of years and watching 
people ask me questions while the open documentation was sitting there
on the page of interest. It is faster for most people to ask a human 
for answers than it is to ferret things out, search for relavence, and
skim topics. 

>3) Give every user desiring net access a quiz (and a damn hard one)
>   about basic "netiquette" and proper procedures for getting
>   questions answered, as well as the basics of the newsreading 
>   software

And this destroys the very spirit USENET thrives on. I wouldn't
do this myself. I'd also imagine most people wouldn't go to the 
trouble unless they perceived some value to it...which is 
hard to perceive unless you've actually used the net.

>Well, you got what you asked for, in spades:  a "random" USENET user
>weighing in on the question of whether one view of what is important
>in USENET use is more valid than another.  And, if you disagree, then
>please explain to me within this "situational" context why I should
>not have crossposted this article to sci.physics and rec.autos.driving.

I disagree and you probably SHOULD have crossposted this to those groups.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Nobody wants constructive criticism.  It's all we can do to put up with
constructive praise.
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy