Xref: utzoo news.admin:11556 comp.sources.d:6173
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!haven!adm!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: The responsibilities of volunteers
Summary: my $2/100 worth...
Message-ID: <9193@lanl.gov>
Date: 17 Dec 90 22:03:41 GMT
References: <1990Nov27.075737.16836@vicom.com> <10820@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> <1850@utoday.com>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 57

I've been following this and related threads off and on for a while
now.

As background, what I "know" about the issues is what I've read
here and what I've observed here and elsewhere on the net.
Further, I've served as a volunteer in an all-volunteer
organization and so I'm rather sensitive to those who bitch about
how it's being done and especially so to those who *only* bitch.

Keep the above statements in mind as I say that my sympathies lie,
largely, with Rich Salz.  Yes, I read that some of you are willing
to help or to take over moderation of the group.  Most of the
antis, however, (no I didn't collect any statistics) seem to be in
the category of *only* bitching.  My observation is that it is,
indeed, *most* -- those whose postings can truly be called
moderator bashing.

Someone else posted an article (I've neither the time nor the
inclination to collect names and reference numbers and article
numbers and--you'll all have to settle for anonymous attribution) 
suggesting that there is no scarcity of other groups to which to
submit source if c.s.u is too slow.  Yet someone else mentioned
that he posted to c.s.u because it was the most appropriate group
to which to post his source.

There seem to be those who claim that Rich goes to great trouble to
check submissions to assure their quality.  And there are those who
minimize this or who claim it's counterproductive or...  Some even
claim, as I recall, that he checks for nasties such as trojan horses.
Clearly, I have no way of knowing if Rich does any of this.  I do know
that some good stuff has come through c.s.u.

With this in mind, how about this (probably naive) suggestion:
Since there are some who feel that c.s.u is worth the wait and
others who claim that they want to get their source posted and to
hell with the checking but (some) want an appropriate group, how
about a new group, say alt.sources.unix, with quick turnaround and
not checking for that contingent and leave c.s.u alone for those
who accept it the way it is?

Alternatively, perhaps the existing c.s.u could become
comp.sources.unix.tested and another subgroup called
comp.sources.unix.quick could be formed for those who prefer
speed.

I'm sure that many reasons will be posted to show why this
suggestion is all wet.  Maybe so but I think it is as useful a
suggestion as many, if not most, of the postings about the matter.
Each contingent can have the kind of group they want to post to and
*lots* of net bandwidth will be saved until someone thinks of
something else to bitch about. :)/2

Best,

Charlie Sorsby						"I'm the NRA!"
	crs@lanl.gov
	sorsby@pprg.unm.edu