From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: To keep the r.m.s rename is _not_ elitist (was Re: *BAD*...)
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:10:59 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <2B0006C8.3248@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen):
> >In article <2AFE6DA6.4DCD@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)  
writes:
> >> ...the class of people that _choose_to_know_ how the net runs, and  
who
> >> show an interest in same by reading news.announce.newgroups.
> >
> >Bzzt!
> 
> Bzzt! yourself.  How rude.
> 
I'm attempting to match your tone of voice. I'll revert to being polite.

> >Please point me at a succinct list of documents that provide the  
> >interested people with all the information necessary.
> 
> Here's the list:
> 
>     What Is Usenet?   [ hey, I wrote it, so of course I put it first :-)  
]
>     Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
>     A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
>     How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
> 
> That should do it.
>
Well it *should*, but does it?  Do these really spell everything out?  
Should someone uninterested in creating a news group HAVE to read 'How to  
Create a New Usenet Newsgroup'? So, upon reading  these you feel it should  
be clear to anyone what RFD and CFV stand for and  that there presence in  
a newsgroup means that they are for that group and  can't be there for any  
other reason (such as informational)? 

IMO, that's far from the case. Go back and read them without benefit of  
your net-experience (if you can). The body of work hardly paints a clear  
picture and DOESN'T define the terms used.

> >Please see the other posts about what I think a person would need to  
know...
> 
> I don't care what you think a person would need to know.  I care what
> he really does need to know relative to newsgroup creation, which is
> the issue at hand.  The above documents well describe the process.
> 
I might have different impressions about this than you, who are obviously  
a  seasoned Usenet authority. Might my opnion not reflect other people  
that really DO need to be informed about this stuff and have difficulty  
with  the way the information has been provided? Or do I (or such people)  
not count?

IMO, the above documents DON'T "well describe the process" in and of  
themselves if the process used terms that aren't defined therein.

> >> Point two: A descriptive subject line would not have prevented this
> >> after-the-fact carping.
> >
> >So we should drop discussing how to make subject lines and the voting  
> >process clearer? Or are you just trying to be "right" here?
> 
> Can't you read?  Or are you too upset to read?  Look what I wrote:
> 
> >> Which is not to say that I oppose descriptive subject lines!
> >> They are valuable.  But realize also that they are not magic.
> 
> Clear enough?
> 
I'm pretty calm about this. Are you? My statement was about TWO issues.  
You ignored one and diminished the other. To me that wasn't clear support.

> >> All they had to do was read news.announce.newgroups.  They didn't.   
By
> >> all objective evidence, they did _not_ care ... enough.
> >
> >The guidelines already state that the proposal should be posted in the  
> >affected groups.
> 
> Which it was.
> 
You're missing the point. Your contention was that users should read  
news.announce.newgroups if they care enough. My point is that the spirit  
of the guidlines SEEMS to be that people should be informed in a more  
direct fashion. I think more can be done to live up to that than just  
sticking the article in the newsgroup. I'd like to see the guidelines be  
more specific than this. I *don't* want to revert to the "you should read 
news.announce.newgroups" argument.

> >One shouldn't have to read news.announce.newgroups to know of a vote
> >affecting their group.
> 
> They didn't have to read n.a.newgroups to know -- even Dave knew about
> the vote, and he didn't read n.a.newgroups.  But reading n.a.newgroups
> reduces the chance that you'll accidentally miss a vote you'll care
> about.  For one thing, having low volume, it can be expired slower, so
> you won't miss RFDs and CFVs just because you were away for a weekend.
> 
A good point. BUT there are other things we can do as well. I don't think  
news.announce.newgroups is enough. If a proposal isn't easily noticed  
inside another newsgroup it propbably isn't going to be easily noticed in  
news.announce.newgroups along with a bunch of other RFD's and CFV's  
either.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky news.groups:21378 alt.config:6837