From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:33:31 GMT

In article <cuz.721290453@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu  
(Cousin It) writes:
> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> 
> |Send seperate articles with different subject lines to the affected  
group.  
> |Even a small message which is a pointer to the one with your exiting  
> |subject line would have been a help.
> 
> 	That sounds really good. Think off all the fragmented
> discussions we can have then. The reason why we don't do that now is
> so we can have a logical place and headers for discussion/all
> discussion will be under "one roof". If you take your method, in this
> case, without taking in any of the usual fragmentation that happens
> anyway (*sigh*), there would have been a high probability of having 5
> seperate discussions. On the same proposal. This is not good.
> 
If the separate pointers refer to a common message which contains the  
content of the proposal and indicates where follow-ups should go I don't  
think it would splinter any more than it would via the cross-postings that  
are already mandatory.

> |I don't doubt for a moment that you had the best of intentions. I also  
> |agree that the existing subject line is logically correct even if it  
> |doesn't tell the whole story. I just think there should have been a  
better  
> |attempt to make the impact clear and the affected existing groups aware  
of  
> |it.
> 
> 	Fine, end of discussion. If you find the subject logically
> correct, and people don't read it, that's thier problem. We can't, nor
> should we hand proposals to "the ignorant horde" on a silver platter.
> If they don't realize that a CFV/RFD, which was posted into "thier"
> group might be important to said group, then they aren't responsible.
> And they deserve the fate they get. 
> 
Logically correct doesn't mean 'clear'. And the more I think about it, it  
wasn't even logically correct. "Ignorant horde"? Nice elitist term. Many  
people have expressed confusion over this process and have questioned it.  
Are they all "ignorant" in your eyes? Are people that mistype "their"  
ignorant?

> Besides, the subject line is not
> there to make impact clear, that is what the message body is for.

Is this in the guidelines or is this your opinion?

> |This is a VERY good point. I hadn't seen the original article. I wish  
> |someone that had would have said something about it. I don't know as  
that  
> |would remove your responsibilty however for an unclear subject line.
> 
> 	Wait. You just above said the subject line was logically
> correct. If it's logically correct, it really can't be all that
> unclear. Not to mention the fact that the only group that the subject
> line was unclear in was r.m.synth.
> 

Logically correct does not equal clear. Do you know it was clear to other  
groups? Do you have any evidence of that? People keep asking *me* for  
evidence. Where's yours? The lack of messages from other groups? Are they  
cross-posted on these articles?

> |> I should also point out that I received no correspondence from anyone
> |> objecting to the "Subject" line while the vote was taking place.
> 
> |That's because most people affected didn't know it was taking place.  
> |(Circular argument).
> 
> 	Oh well, tough noogies.
> 

What a thoughtful response.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups