Xref: utzoo news.admin:11486 comp.sources.d:6131 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: The responsibilities of volunteers Message-ID: <1990Dec10.055351.13221@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 10 Dec 90 05:53:51 GMT References: <27662@cs.yale.edu> <8195@uwm.edu> <1990Dec9.231719.11572@athena.mit.edu> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 107 jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: >> Let's deal in some facts, if you please. > Yes, let's. But let's deal with all of the facts, not just the ones > that are convenient for you, OK? Well, while we're setting rules, let's not make unilateral decisions on just what is important about posting software to comp.sources.unix, OK? >> How long has Rich been moderating c.s.u? And, in that time, how many >> packages have been released? >> To answer my own questions... >> [a calculation that purports to show that since Rich took over, there >> have been an average of two packages per week posted to >> comp.sources.unix.] I can't imagine what, outside of kindergarden level innumeracy, could have prompted you to choose the term "purports"; either you understand the calculation, or you do not. I'm pretty sure my twelve year old daughter could walk you through it, if it gave you that much trouble. >> What's *wrong* with you people? *Two* "fixes" a week aren't >> sufficient? Are you addicted to a constant flow of free code, or >> what? > Are you really trying to claim that an average calculation over the > entire life of comp.sources.unix (with Rich moderating it) is a valid > indication of the actual *current* status of the newsgroup? That's > completely ridiculous. Well, my site's undergone a hardware upgrade this year, but the last article count I saw for comp.sources.unix was 501, so at least that many postings have hit the group. That doesn't at all look to me like the signs of an idle moderator. And, strangely enough, there's an article currently online in the group for each day of this site's expire time. Looks like he's just been _pouring_ sources out, to me. > Your analysis completely ignores the most important issues being > discussed here. Unfortunately, that judgement of "importance" is not widely shared. > First of all, we've been discussing the chronological (as opposed to > qualitative -- I don't think anyone here has challenged Rich's ability > to do a very good job on the submissions that *do* get posted) > consistency of Rich's moderation. As was noted by another poster in response to the article with the graph, what we see is that the group's output has _always_ been bunchy. All we have now is a bunch of newbies who just noticed the fact and are trying to pretend they've discovered heliocentrism, or something. > Over the last couple of years, it has become completely impossible for > an author to know, after submitting something to comp.sources.unix, > whether it would take a week, a month, or even a year for the > submission to actually be posted to the newsgroup. Your calculations > ignore this. Impatient authors have and have always had a multitude of alternate publication paths. Some have used them. My site was using trn off an ftp site before it came out in c.s.u. It is a fair assumption that authors who wait patiently for their software to be posted do so because they are willing to trade time for the imprimateur of quality Rich's excellent moderation gives the software published through c.s.u. Since the main value of the group is its reputation, and that depends entirely on the diligence and probity of the moderator, proposals to go to a multi-moderator system or to replace the moderator are quite beside the point. I can think of perhaps three other people on the net I'd trust with the job, and none of them have stepped forward to offer assistance. > Second, as I have pointed out in another message, your calculations > are only relevant if you make the base assumption that the number of > submissions to the newsgroup hasn't risen since Rich took over. But, > in fact, it is almost certainly the case that the number of > submissions *has* risen, in which case the output of the newsgroup > should *also* rise; if it does not, then the inevitable affect is > longer delays, which is exactly what is being protested. Bingo! We have a scarce and irreplaceable resource, and aside from the false to fact character assassination postings here, he is also being abused by overuse. Are there really that many people on the net who write software _worth_ the quality of review that sees it published in comp.sources.unix? > Third, as I have pointed out in another message, it is ludicrous to > try to claim two packages are posted to c.s.u per week, when six of > the last twelve months have seen *no packages at all* posted to the > newsgroup, or at least, not according to what's in the archives on > uunet.uu.net. You slept through your statistics classes, or you took a pass when common sense was handed out? That is the biggest set of logical contradictions yet posted in this pile of newbie nattering. If there are sixteen packages posted every other month, or eight per month, the average is the same. If you have a point aside from your first amendment right to bitch in print at length, you have yet to make it. Kent, the man from xanth.