Xref: utzoo news.groups:29882 comp.sources.d:6736
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit345!diamond
From: diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: RESULT:  comp.sources.reviewed passes 270:54
Message-ID: <1991Apr3.012027.12385@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 3 Apr 91 01:20:27 GMT
References: <4!.g+#m@rpi.edu> <29278:Apr215:39:3191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System)
Reply-To: diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 38

In article <29278:Apr215:39:3191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>Will it remain embroiled in discussion about the reviewing process? Will
>the moderator give up in disgust? Will the reviewers fail to accomplish
>anything in a reasonable amount of time? Will one of the first ten
>packages through the group crash miserably or destroy files? Will USENET
>go down the tubes with the volume of complaints about the slowness of
>comp.sources.reviewed? Will postings mysteriously fail to materialize at
>any archive sites? Or will people simply ignore a group which achieves
>no useful purpose?

My, aren't we grouchy this morning.  How one person can post such useful
information and code half the time, and then turn around and spout such
garbage, is beyond me.

Look Mr. Bernstein, if you're so afraid of comp.sources.reviewed, don't
subscribe to the group.  And don't post to it; you can post to alt.sources.
There's no need for you to interfere with the wishes of others.

>There are lots of juicy possibilities. I vote for all of them.

The voting period is passed.  I hate to suggest that if you dislike the
voting conventions of Usenet, that you should unsubscribe from Usenet.
Perhaps you should start a new thread suggesting that the voting conventions
should be changed.  Perhaps you want a longer period of time for discussion,
so that you can try harder to convince more people of your opinion.  Perhaps
you want the rule on 100 more yes than no votes to be increased, say to 200
(oh is this sarcastic?  OK then say 300).

I personally feel that the only "no" votes that ever should have counted
were those of old backbone sites, and that today the "no" votes should not
be counted at all.  'Fraid I can't suggest how many "yes" votes should be
necessary, so I can't make a real suggestion.  But anyway, my .newsrc has
an awful lot of "!"s in it, and my "j" key gets a lot of use, and there are
a lot of real-world magazines that I don't subscribe to.  What's the problem?
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.