From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: comp.binaries.apple2 moderated
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:27:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul28.050703.19061@unlinfo.unl.edu> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:

[...]
 
>>>>>Maybe it should be "... deemed inappropriate as stated in the charter"?
>
>>>>Agreed, it should be spelled out exactly in the charter. If it does pass,
>>>>lets at least iron out any apparent problems.
>
>>>Well, "inappropriate" has a wide spread.  That the article was actually
>>>approved by a moderator would imply that it was appropriate, but it
>>>could turn that under closer examination it was not.  However, it is
>>>primarily there as a clause to authorize a moderator to cancel
>>>postings not made by a moderator.
>
>Such as articles posted with forged approval.

Good point, although to the best of my knowledge, this has not been a
problem.

[...]
 
>>How will the net at large be able to assess programs possessed only by
>>the moderators?
>
>That is why I mentioned articles approved mistakenly by a moderator.
>I'm sure the users of c.b.- and c.sys.apple2 would raise hell over a
>commercial program slipping through.
>
>>I remember when the runtime version of Hyperstudio was
>>posted with some stacks, and there were people complaining that 
>>commercial software had been posted. Net users make mistakes as well.
>
>If the hard evidence shows that the net-at-large is incorrect (to be
>presented in the open forum of comp.sys.apple2) then an article will be
>left alone, or reposted if it had been removed.

Fair enough.
 
>>But if the charter is so vague that it does not specify what should
>>not be posted, then the netgroup users have no say, the moderator can
>>rule with an iron fist (so to speak, and I do not mean to allude to
>>Jawaid).
>>
>>The charter should specifically mention materials which are inappropriate,
>>which would obviously include commercial programs.
>
>I'm not about to list every program ever written and say yes/no on each.
>I will however give general categories

This would not work anyway, as only existing pre-tested software would
be postable. The world would never have experienced the wonderfull
fractal programs by (Liem?). In fact, I think that this is the wrong
way to define things.
 
>How about this:
>
>|Appropriate files shall mean virus-free Freeware, Shareware, or
>|otherwise freely-distributable programs which run on any one or more
>|Apple II or Apple III computers or their compatibles, their [programs']
>|documentation, and their data files, excluding those files which are
>|already covered by existing newsgroups' charters.  Submissions will
>|include a description of a reasonable length; when posted it will be
>|be presented at the beginning of the first part of the archive, and
>|seperated from the archive body by a Control-L.  The description will
>|include what machine(s) it will properly run on.
>|
>|Appropriate postings do not include articles that are not approved by
>|one of the moderators nor the idle-moderator script.  Such approval
>|does not insure an article is appropriate, especially in the case of
>|the latter.
>|
>|Subjects will be constructed with keywords indentifying CPU requirements,
>|name of the archived program, parts count, and short summary (additional
>|hardware and software requirements will take precedence over short
>|summary).  Postings will be encoded using newest versions of ShrinkIT
>|and BinSCII, until such (unforseen at this writing) time that they are
>|usurped in preference.  There will be 3 BinSCII parts per post.
>|Articles will have unique, sequential article-IDs, with Reference:
>|headers set accordingly for threaded newsreaders' (like trn) benefit.
>|The series of posts that make up a complete archive will be posted
>|together, and will be delayed until all parts have been received.
>|Submissions not checked for 5 days after receipt will be automatically
>|posted as-is; it is recommended, but not required, that submitters send
>|postings in in the same format as the approved postings are sent out.
>|Repeat postings will not be posted if the posting in question has been
>|posted within 6 months time; this does not apply to newer versions of
>|the same program.  Postings will be forwarded to the APPLE2-L mailing
>|list as approved, as well as archived on an anonymously accessible FTP
>|site.  Old postings will also be available on request from the
>|moderator(s).
>|
>|If an article is found to be inappropriate, the article will be
>|cancelled.  In the case of articles with forged approval, the article
>|will then be treated as if it had just been submitted by the poster.
>
>Hmm, I'd better save that!

Very good. Two points, where do graphics fit in (they are not programs),
and what about things not specifically mentioned. Hypercard stacks for
example are not programs in the traditional sense. How abut a line that
any item not listed as inappropriate be allowed. There may yet be new
things ported to/written for the Apple2.

One more point, if you have GSCii, it is easy to post in the correct
format. For those with a non-GS using BINSCII, it can be a problem
putting large files in this format. Is there any need to require 3
segments per post? I remember when I had my //e and floppies and
posted from Portal. Why not make the 3-segments per post the 
preferred posting format, and allowing the single segment posts?

Just looked again, one more item. Why the requirement for the latest
version of Shrinkit. Older versions can be used without difficulty.
This seems to be an unecessary restriction, and for net-readers who
do not have the latest Shrinkit, posts would be unusable. I see no
advantages to this restriction, and potential disadvantages. How
about changing the wording to just 'packed with Shrinkit'?
 
Also, I am curious. If the post is a valid post to the binaries group,
what does a forged approval matter? Should we not concentrate on the
posts, not the posters? Strange things have happened, and not all of
them are nefarious plots to destroy the world. I remember the fun I
had when I discovered the telnet ports.

>Basically the above is a restatement of the "Goals of Moderation" in the
>RFDs, but I'll incorporate it into the Call For Votes printing of the
>charter.  Any other changes?  C'mon, speak up, we don't have a whole
>month anymore.
>
>>Why should there be a problem with spelling this out in the charter?
>
>Well there is the 3 days we have to suddenly make changes.  I mean I am
>glad that you are at least discussing this now, but did it have to be
>_now_?  I was about ready to pre-send the CFV.
>
>One problem with spelling everything out explicitly is that it does not
>leave room for future expansion.

My idea was not to spell out all appropriate items, only those items 
specifically dis-allowed. This leaves things open-ended.	
 
>>BTW, who are the proposed moderators? Jawaid would have my vote, but at
>>this point I am not sure about Tero. Are there others?
>
>Just the list of 4 as printed in the 3rd RFD.  Tero though is not in
>that list.  The 4 are Jawaid, myself, johnp@silver.lcs.mit.edu (John
>Palaima), and stuckey@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Anthony J. Stuckey).  Jawaid
>is primary moderator, myself as co, and John and Anthony as backups who
>will be called to duty when needed.

Tero had answered several posts I had made to one of the proposed moderators,
and as I had not been watching names closely, I missed the change. Life
goes on...
 
>-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: news.groups