Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!dkuug!tfl.dk!karsten
From: karsten@tfl.dk
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Comp.sources.unix idle _AGAIN_
Message-ID: <1991Feb24.154357.146@tfl.dk>
Date: 24 Feb 91 14:43:57 GMT
References: <3520@uc.msc.umn.edu> <376@metran.UUCP> <1991Feb22.204139.15552@sat.com> <1991Feb24.035428.10981@rick.doc.ca>
Organization: TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory
Lines: 50

In article <1991Feb24.035428.10981@rick.doc.ca>, andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes:
> In article <1991Feb22.204139.15552@sat.com> lmb@sat.com (Larry Blair) writes:
>>I would just like to point out that, once again, a complaint about c.s.u has
>>resulted in a small dribble to the group.  Does Rich keep a package in reserve
>>for each complaint?
>>
>>Whatever happened to the comp.sources.refereed idea?
> 
> A Call for Discussion was posted to this and other relevant groups
> (including news.announce.newgroups) back at the beginning of February.
> 
> There has been VERY little response, and I was about to let the idea
> drop.  It will live if you want it to, but I am looking for a little
> interest out there before I post a Call for Votes (scheduled for
> today).
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA
> andrew@calvin.doc.CA
>                     "The interface IS the program."
> oda

Yes.  It's right that there has been very little response - I have only seen
two followups in news.groups.  This can have four reasons:

   1) People don't care about the *.sources.* groups.  Then the proposal
      will fall.  The vivid discussions about comp.sources.unix and
      R$ proves that wrong.
   2) The the proposal was so well prepared that noboby thought it was
      worth answering - not that likely.  If people cared somebody would
      post Yeh let's get it postings.
   3) Bad experiences with moderated comp.sources.* groups.
   4) Few noticed the CFD.  The little dicussion in news.groups has made
      many forget Your CFD.

Personally I think it is a compination of 2), 3) and 4).  I think the reason for
the many bad experiences with comp.sources groups is that there is more work
connected to being moderator of such a group than one voluntary can do.  The
only solution to that is to try something like comp.sources.reviewed.  The
little interest in discussing c.s.r could be because the discussion never really
got started.  Therefore nobody was tempted to post the rather boring posting
giving thumbs up or down.  An other reason could be that people have been
discussing comp.sources.* so much that everybody are tired.  I think that for
these reasons, the only way to find out whether people want comp.sources.reviwed
is a vote.

Karsten Nyblad
TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory
E-mail: karsten@tfl.dk