Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sparky!kent
From: kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (-Kent+)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: comp.sources.misc != alt.sources
Message-ID: <1991Mar21.033325.26029@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM>
Date: 21 Mar 91 03:33:25 GMT
References: <17900010@vantage.UUCP> <1991Mar16.202344.17575@NCoast.ORG>
Organization: Sterling Software IMD, Bellevue, Nebraska
Lines: 57

In article <1991Mar16.202344.17575@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
>As quoted from <17900010@vantage.UUCP> by ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere):
>+---------------
>| It seems to me that ... those unhappy with the turnaround time (the time
>| between submission and posting) in comp.sources.unix could submit to
>| comp.sources.misc. Obviously this is not occurring in several cases,
>| so I would appreciate your thoughts on:
>| 1) what are the main reasons why software is posted to alt.sources,
>|    versus other places ...
>+---------------
>
>Insofar as comp.sources.misc is concerned, I suspect I get most of the
>blame... twice.  First because things got downright nasty at work (and are
>about to get worse AGAIN), so I didn't have time to do my job *or* choose
>someone else to do it, and second because it looks like my chosen successor
>isn't doing a whole lot better in the posting-time department.

Uuuhhh ... First I have to have sources *before* I can post them.  I have 
about a 21 hour average in posting from the time the submission hits my 
mailbox.  Of course, when problems are detected, I send mail to the submitter 
asking that the problem be corrected if I can't fix it myself.  This adds to
any delay that there maybe in the net receiving the package. The delay in 
those cases is *well* worth the time... :-)

>There are also the folks who reject the concept of moderation completely.

There are different types of "moderation".  Moderation to do complete testing
and evaluation have totally different demands in regards to time to post
than moderation that just assures that the parts are intact, can be unpacked 
correctly, are all there, do not exceed the processing size of some older or
smaller systems, formated with archive headers, etc.  

>What *is* clear is that there have been people who chose alt.sources over
>comp.sources.misc because it is unmoderated (and told me when they did it).

That is a pity. The distribution and archiving of alt.sources is weak to say
the least.  As an alpha/beta testing distribution channel alt.sources is great.
As a final distribution and archiving mechanism it is extremely limited.  Yes 
there are people who are religiously opposed to *all* types of moderation.  
That is too bad for the sources they post. Had their sources been posted 
to c.s.misc or another moderated sources group the user community would not
have to search to find a site that has a complete enough alt.sources archive
to locate their contributions.

>I suspect that moderating sources groups demands too much time for most of the
>net.denizens willing to do the job --- comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc,
>and even comp.sources.games tend to have rather excessive lead times.

Sorry but that is just *not* the case in c.s.misc...  Maybe someone else 
does but I don't call 21 hours excessive.  :-)

                                -Kent+
-- 
Kent Landfield                   INTERNET: kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM
Sterling Software, IMD           UUCP:     uunet!sparky!kent
Phone:    (402) 291-8300         FAX:      (402) 291-4362
Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.