Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: The purpose of info-gcc.
Message-ID: <8906170530.AA00863@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 89 05:30:06 GMT
References: <27030@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 47


    Actually, the more correct analogy is a public service cable TV
    channel refusing to carry Berry's message.

info-gcc is not a public access channel.  It was never supposed to be
one.  It is intended for announcements, questions and requests from
the FSF.

I can see why the presence of so much discussion in the past, as well
as messages asking for help, might have given people the impression
that info-gcc was a public access channel.  Those uses weren't what we
intended, but they weren't outrageous, and didn't interfere with the
purpose of the list.  So we didn't see a reason to hassle people about
it.  Alas, our easy-going approach seems to have communicated a
specific message that we never intended.  I regret whatever distress
has been caused by this mistake.

The volume of messages now is driving people off the list who were on
it to see our announcements.  This is interfering with the purpose of
the list, so we will have to moderate it.  There will be some other
list, or perhaps just a newsgroup, for unmoderated discussions about
whether GNU is a good thing.  The details haven't been worked out yet.

There may be another list, or maybe just a newsgroup, for discussions
among people who support the aims of GNU (at least in general) about
the best and most honorable means to achieve them.  I hope the people
who don't support our aims will be polite enough not to impose on
these discussions.

						In this case the situation
    is differnet.  We must remember that FSF is using the USENET to
    achieve further distribution of their news

I believe the people from Ohio State, who maintain the gateway, have
explained that this is not so: the repeater newsgroups gnu.* are not
part of USENET, merely distributed using the same software.

This might seem at first like a distinction without a difference.  The
difference is that it is voluntary for each host to distribute these
groups; in fact, it requires explicit action for a host to start.  So
we are not imposing any costs of distribution on the hosts.  We can
say what the newsgroups are for, and hosts that think this is a good
thing can then propagate them.  Those who don't like the purpose,
don't have to propagate them.

It would be different if the gnu.* newsgroups automatically propagated
through all the hosts of USENET by default.