From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated and comp.archives.msdos.d
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:14:28 GMT

In article <Bvt9n0.3Gw@uunet.uu.net> tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence) writes:
>In article <BvpwHB.Gx5@uunet.uu.net> kko@sfu.ca (Samuel Ko) writes:
>
>   Proposed group:  comp.archives.msdos.d

>I am opposed to this group and will vote against it unless I can be
>convinced that it is somehow not redundant with comp.archives.admin,
>comp.sources.wanted, comp.os.msdos.apps and comp.os.msdos.misc.  The
>charter as written describes functions which are all subsumed by those
>groups.

Yes, David told me so in a private mail in no uncertain terms, and
in a friendly but a totally non-productive exchange we patently
failed convince each others.  The proposed
comp.archives.msdos.announce moderated newsgroup like any newsgroup
bringing in a mass of routine information (like the binaries groups)
need a discussion subgroup of their own.  The groups David points to
are simply too dispersed when looked at from this angle.  What would
might happen that if the .d group is not created along is that the
.d traffic would conrentrate in one of the existing groups
disrupting its normal functions.  And if that did not happen the
traffic would get dispersed and disappear within the factual traffic
of those newsgoups.  Whichever way, I don{t think they would benefit
from the extra traffic. 

Yes, David is right that there is overlap.  There always is.  But
the key word is concentrating the functions of the propesed .d group
in one single newsgroup.  The charter is limited in ways that none
of the David's groups (which I am very well familiar with as a
frequent poster) adheres to.  The keywords must apply
simultaneously:  MsDos shareware & PD programs available at the
MsDos ftp sites, and matters pertaining to those only.  The groups
David lists will lose nothing if the suggestion passes.  But if the
.d group does not pass, much of the usefulmes of the intended
moderated group will be lost.

David is very welcome to vote against.  That is what a free vote is
for.  I understand his point but it is almost predestined that this
implicitly goes to prove one of my main UseNet agages "Where there
is a will, there is a won't".  Somebody always want things
differently!  What I don't understand is that often (although I am
not saying this of David) those who oppose seldom bear any of the
load of keeping things going. 

I am rather sorry that the very first direction this discussion
takes is this, but of course this a a forum for free exange.  It is
just that I know from experience that if things start on a wrong
foot, they may escalate into problematic directions and the original
pertinent view is lost. 

Here the pertinent view is having a working arrangement for useful
traffic from MsDos FTP sites.  That arrangement needs
  comp.archives.msdos.announce  (moderated)  AND
  comp.archives.msdos.d 
Else we are back to square one, that is being unwanted gatecrashers
in newsgroups that don't really want us.  We've been in that
situation before, and we painfully know the troubles that follow. 
David, do you really want to subject us to that risk?  If you do,
you are taking quite a heavy resposibility on your sholders.  I am
prepared to carry out the consequences of Samuel's and my suggestion
if it passes.  I seriously ask you are you really prepared to do the
same if your view overcomes?  I'll hold you on to that!

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland