NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/news/groups/22665

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 5.2 KB | 120 lines

Newsgroups: news.groups
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!watson!Watson.Ibm.Com!strom
From: [e-mail] (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: RF(Informal)D: Standard RFD/CFV Format
Sender: @watson.ibm.com
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 20:28:28 GMT
References:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Research
Keywords: RFD CFV formats guidelines votes
Lines: 107

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (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",
one of the articles in news.announce.newusers which all users are
encouraged to read.  Here is an excerpt from the introduction to that
document:

  *** You now have access to Usenet, a network of thousands of
  computers.  Other documents or your system administrator will provide
  detailed technical documentation.  This message describes the Usenet
  culture and customs that have developed over time.  All new users should
  read this message to find out how Usenet works. ***
  *** (Old users could read it, too, to refresh their memories.)  ***

It defines the Usenet "culture and customs", which is the closest
thing to "guidelines" we have.  You are correct that it is not
from the guidelines for group creation.  It is instead part of more
general guidelines covering *all* postings to Usenet.
It is reasonable to assume that a guideline covering all postings
to Usenet also applies a fortiori to the CFV postings mandated by the
guidelines for group creation.


|> >Now after reading the post-mortem of the rms vote, the net-consensus
|> >seems to be that despite the above, the current process expects
|> >that a CFV appearing in your newsgroup should be read regardless
|> >of what the title says, as long as it says "CFV".
|>
|> 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.  They
say that many postings in a newsgroup are not relevant to every
reader of that newsgroup.  They say that it is reasonable for
readers of a newsgroup to not read postings unless their
subject indicates that they are relevant for them.  They
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.

So as far as I can tell, the rules for subject lines are
quite explicit.  The only dispute is whether, as applied
to CFVs, the rules for subject lines are requirements
or mere suggestions.  The consensus is that they
are currently mere suggestions and I am proposing to
the net that the newsgroup creation rules be amended
to explicitly make them requirements.

|> >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
|> claimed that it needed to be well documented. There are things that
|> don't need a whole lot of documentation for them to be important to
|> know. Where is the documentation that says that cutting your hand off
|> may cause you to bleed to death? Why should ladder companies have to
|> tell people if they stand on the top step that they might fall off?
|>

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".   I had no idea that you had this
strong view about how people ought to know things without
being told.  And I have no interest in sidetracking this
discussion to debate that with you.  I disagree:  this
is a worldwide forum with people from different languages,
different cultures, different levels of knowledge about
computers.  People shouldn't have to know a lot to
use the system, and what they do have to know should
be written down.


|> >and (2) even if it
|> >were perfectly documented, it's not as good a process as the
|> >modified one which I proposed.
|>
|> I disagree.

I think we ought to get back to the topic of explaining why.

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.

I agree that we should not change them retroactively,
but several people have posted that once we stop this
crazy flaming about trying to undo the vote, we should
get to work on amended guidelines.   My proposal for
requiring a syntax-driven rule governing the allocation
of votes to ballots and governing the appearance
of subject lines of calls for votes remains on the table.

--
Rob Strom, [e-mail], [phone]
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598