From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: User's Guide to the Changing USENET
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:33:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1es491INNfvi
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov24.012834.21142@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>stanley@skyking.oce.orst.edu (John Stanley) writes:
>>  1. RFD's are important. Read them before deciding to ignore them.
>>  2. CFV's are REALLY important. Read them before deciding to ignore them.
>
>The wording here implies that they are ignorable. "Do X before deciding Y"
>gets the person reading to consider Y as an alternative. How about:

Of course it implies they can be ignored. They can be. There is nothing
that says that they can't be. I see lots of RFD's and CFV's that I
ignore, but only after I read them to find out what groups are affected.
There is no error in ignoring a CFV. The error is in ignoring it and
then expecting the net to backspace because you didn't like the results
of the vote.

>But now the question comes up...why not do:
> 
>    Discussion: <newsgroup> renaming to <newsgroup>
>    VOTE: <newsgroup> renaming to <newsgroup>

BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES AREN'T WRITTEN THAT WAY AND THAT ISN'T THE WAY IT
IS DONE. This isn't a document to say how it SHOULD be done, it is
documenting how it IS done. It makes no sense to document something that
doesn't happen. When the guidelines get changed I will more than gladly
update this document to reflect how things ARE done.

>>  6. To learn even more, ask questions.
>
>Yeah, right. I can see it now:

You seem very good at wanting to predict what someone else will do -- to
the point that you don't bother to do anything yourself because you think
you know what the response will be so why bother? Why not predict the
response to be "Admin: read the user's guide in news.announce.newusers"?
That is probably more likely than anything else. And, just for your
information, pointing to the manual isn't a flame.

>How about a guide for netnews adminstrators?

Dave, if you want one, WRITE IT. Stop demanding that everyone else toe
your line and write what you want written.

>>For example: rec.aviation
>>recently split into many subgroups that are more specific as to topic.
>
>Current examples won't be in a few years.

So what? Are you objecting to the use of current examples, or the use of
the word 'recently'? What difference does it make whether recently
refers to a year ago or last week? Answer: it makes no difference.

>>	Reread the preceeding paragraph.
>
>You keep saying this, but it doesn't insure that someone will read it.

Nothing will ensure that anyone reads anything. I thought you knew
that. Weren't you the one who told all his users about all the
documentation and they didn't read it?

>Better chances of reading something are obtained by brevity, without 
>sacrificing too much clarity. 

Dave, I am getting tired of your spouting off about how bad the
documents are without making the effort to make them better. As far as
I am concerned, you have absolutely no ground to make snide comments
about someone else's work until you put your own work on the line.

It is SO much easier to take pot shots at someone else's work than to
write your own, isn't it? Funny how some people who seem interested in
actually HAVING a document like this have made specific, constructive
suggestions to make it better, while all you have done is take shots.

Shoot away. Have a ball. Have a nice life. Goodbye.