From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RF(Informal)D: Standard RFD/CFV Format
Keywords: RFD CFV formats guidelines votes
Date: 22 Nov 92 02:24:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1emr1fINNs5k
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov21.202828.25201@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <1ei0pdINNg3n@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
>|> >It is very unclear on the issue of what is required vs. what is
>|> >merely recommended.  Here are the guidelines with respect to Subject lines:
>|> >
>|> >			   Use Descriptive Titles
>|> 
>|> This text is not in the guidelines for group creation. It may be in the
>|> 'netiquette' postings, but those are not guidelines for group creation.
>|>
>
>The text is from "A Primer on How to Work with the Usenet Community",

Which isn't the guidelines for creation of newsgroups, the document that
you implied that you had read.

>It defines the Usenet "culture and customs", which is the closest
>thing to "guidelines" we have.  

"The guidelines" refers to the guidelines for newgroup creation. Those
are the closest to guidelines we have.

>|> It doesn't take too much effort to connect the ideas that "newsgroups
>|> are formed to carry traffic relevant to the newsgroup" and "a posting
>|> in a newsgroup is most likely relevant to the newsgroup."
>|> 
>The subject line guidelines explicitly say the opposite.  

Hardly. Another incorrect assumption on your part.

>They
>say that many postings in a newsgroup are not relevant to every
>reader of that newsgroup.  

Well, a CFV isn't necessarilly relevant to every reader of a
newsgroup. There are some readers who don't care about newsgroup names.
It still is relevant to the newsgroup as a whole, in the sense that it
deals with that newsgroup.

>say that it is therefore incumbent upon authors of articles to
>use appropriate subject lines if they want to make sure that
>their articles are read.  

CFV is an appropriate subject for a CFV.

>So as far as I can tell, the rules for subject lines are
>quite explicit.  

The same 'rules' that would make your proposed subject line incorrect, as
well, I would point out.

>|> >Furthermore
>|> >Mr. Stanley believes that this fact is well-documented.
>|> 
>|> Don't you dare decide for me what I believe or not. I have never said
>|> it is well documented, nor have I implied that. I have also never

>Well, excuse me.  This was a discussion about what the
>written rules should say.  So when you said that "people
>should know X" I inferred that this was synonymous with
>"X is documented". 

And you assumed that the guidelines for group creation were specific
about what the subject line for a CFV must say. 

Your inferrence engine is misaligned. I hope it is under warranty.

>People shouldn't have to know a lot to
>use the system, and what they do have to know should
>be written down.

You aren't talking about what people need to know to use the system.
You are talking about what they need to know to CHANGE the system. For
users who wish only to know how to vote on what matters come up, that
is explained quite well by the call for votes, and the guidelines
really are explicit about demanding that be true. As for learning how
to start the change process, the guidelines are already written down.

>I think the controversy over this vote and the fact that
>several people posted that they were unaware of it is
>evidence that we should change the guidelines.  

There will always be ignorant people. Changing the guidelines to protect
those who choose not to participate and then change their minds will
result in endless changes to the guidelines. Those who choose not to
participate are making their own decision. If that choice is manifested
by their decision not to look for other newsgroups, in particular, those
relating to news itself, that is still their choice.

You want a change to the guidelines to force an explicit subject line.
Fine. It didn't work when an article with an explicit subject line was
posted to the group that is complaining, why do you expect it to work
in the future?