Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.text.TeX Message-ID: Date: 18 Dec 89 22:09:46 GMT References: <14650@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <865.25877f44@dayton.saic.com> <3601@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Sender: news@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 24 In-reply-to: dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU's message of 14 Dec 89 20:38:29 GMT In article <3601@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (D.A. Hosek) writes: Also, be aware that only a tiny fraction of the TeX community ever even sees news. A large number of DVI driver questions, for example, have gone unanswered because I didn't start reading news until fairly recently. Leslie Lamport, who wrote LaTeX, reads TeXhax. He does not get news. The same can be said of many other important TeX people. The Call For Discussion suggests that comp.text.tex be bidirectionally gatewayed with TeXhax. This is A Good Thing, provided of course the TeXhax digest moderator wishes it to be gatewayed and is willing to cooperate. Workable mechanisms exist for linking single-article newsgroups with digestified mailing lists (vis comp.sys.sun/Sun-Spots). This would prevent the fragmentation of the TeX community, at the expense of more work on the part of the moderator to filter out the typical newsgroup noise. However, it would reqire that the newsgroup be moderated, unlike the proposal in the Call For Discussion. I think a moderated comp.text.tex gatewayed with TeXhax is a good idea, provided that the current members of TeXhax want it that way. If TeXhax doesn't want to be gatewayed onto the Usenet, then comp.text.tex should not be created because it would fragment the community, which would be A Bad Thing.