NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/os/vms/21840

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 6.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!ucbvax!lrw.com!leichter
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Leichter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: re: Re: Moderated VAX Info List?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:43:20 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 124


    [Terry Poot mentions some of the summarizes a number of the issues
    surrounding mailing lists, moderated mailing lists, and so on.]:

    I don't know if you'd consider me a major contributor. I'm no Jerry
    Leichter or Jamie Hanrahan, but somehow my name keeps coming up in a
    list with theirs.

Terry, you're being too modest.  Your contributions are valuable.

               So for what it's worth, and speaking only for
    myself, I'm not interested. IMHO, mailing lists are simply not good
    for conferencing, and I rarely use them (when I do, I gateway them
    into local newsgroups).

    A moderated newsgroup would be OK. Of course, putting one in usenet
    requires going through that hassle. We could create one fairly easily
    on VMSnet, if a moderator were found. It could be gatewayed to a list
    (several VMSnet newsgroups are), and you could run the list, although
    supporting a gateway inherently messes things up. It's hard to
    subdivide a group into more distinct topics if a significant part of
    the group's population is on a mailing list (which is, IMHO, the only
    reason comp.os.vms is still viable (?) and more heavily used than
    vmsnet.misc). Also, it destroys the ability to crosspost.

Years ago (6-8, perhaps - yes, I've been an INFO-VAX denizen for a LONG time),
calls for a DIGESTED INFO-VAX arose periodically.  They never went anywhere,
and it's curious that the topic - and the closely related one of moderation -
remained silent for so long.  My own objection to a digest is that it makes
it difficult to respond to individual messages.  I like to be able to type
REPLY, copy to INFOVAX, and edit my reply into the original message - as I'm
(almost) doing here.

A moderated but UNdigested mailing list doesn't have this problem, but such
lists are relatively rare, and the task of moderating a list with the volume
of INFO-VAX would be daunting.

    I've long expected comp.os.vms/info-vax to die under its own weight,
    and it seems to be happening.

Here, I agree.

                      I consider the use of a mailing list to
    be the root cause.

Here, I absolutely DISagree.  The INFO-VAX mailing list has been around for a
VERY long time.  I don't know exactly how far back it dates, but I think I've
been a subscriber since roughly 1984.  During most of its life, INFO-VAX has
had a reasonably good signal-to-noise ratio, and while it's seen periodic
flame wars, they have in the past died out fairly quickly.  In fact, the
current flame wars easily exceed anything I've ever seen on this group,
whether you measure number of postings, length of time, or even degree of
vitriole.

My own feeling is that the root cause is that it is the NEWSGROUP side that is
to blame.  Flame wars are common on Usenet, even expected.  That attitude has
spilled over to the mailing list side.  But there are other factors at work.
Call me elitist for saying so, but the newsgroup side has made it too easy for
people to jump right it.  Joining a mailing list takes a certain amount of
effort, and many people with only a tangential interest won't bother.  Also,
the volume of mail from this list drives off those who might join anyway.

The connection to the newsgroup has made life much less pleasant for those of
us left on the mailing list side.  Messages from the newsgroup side are often
delayed for days before we see them; then, they often appear twice.  Most
messages have no usable return address; this one is an example.  Until the
great changeover, I could almost always use REPLY to reply directly to the
poster of an INFO-VAX message; now, it's very rare for me to be able to.
(My own personal choice is to send one copy of a reply directly to the poster
and one to INFO-VAX itself, wherever possible.  I make an exception for people
who ask for a reply only to them - in that case, I deliberately reply only
to INFO-VAX.)

               It focuses all the traffic in one place. More
    tightly focused newsgroups, such as vmsnet.internals and vmsnet.sysmgt
    have much higher signal-to-noise ratios.

I follow these as well.  They are very low volume groups; I question their
viability.  I think they survive only because they are linked to the larger
"info-vax" complex.

In any case, except during high-flame periods, INFO-VAX has never struck me
as covering too broad an area.  About the only thing one MIGHT split off are
DECwindows/MOTIF related questions, which often to have a rather different
flavor from other questions and seem to come from, and draw answers from, a
slightly different community.  But there aren't enough of them to really be a
problem. in my judgement.

A beginners/wizards split has also been proposed many, many times over the
years - though, again, not recently.  (INFO-VAX went through a period of
perhaps 3 or 4 years when there is remarkly little "meta-discussion"; it
just seemed to work.)  I doubt this would work.  The problem, as always, is
how to keep those who can give good answers to beginner's questions interested
active in the group.

                         Even when the dumb questions
    and flamage creep in, they are spread across topic areas, which
    reduces the "pain threshold" in any one group.

    If a moderated mailing list is created, I won't subscribe. If a
    moderated newsgroup arrives on my system, I'll probably read it. If
    that group is in VMSnet, I'll probably create it (I'm sure the user
    base would approve).

My situation is exactly the opposite.  If a moderated mailing list were to
appear, I would be glad to give it a try.  A newsgroup, of any type, is of
no interest to me.

Let me explain why.  I follow newsgroups from my "day job" at Rutgers.  I
read INFO-VAX here at LRW (my "night" job, as it were).  My system here does
not receive news, nor will it until a very different kind of news program
comes into existence.  Since I would be the only person reading news here,
it makes no sense at all for news to stick around, waiting to expire, after
I have read it.  Conversely, when I'm away and DON'T have a chance to read
news, it should NEVER expire.  The mail model is exactly right for the way I
use this system; the news model is exactly wrong.

    Anyway, that's one data point for you to consider. I could probably
    have stated this a bit better, it started as an email reply and then I
    changed my mind and decided to post it.

Now you've got another one.
                            -- Jerry