Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!cs.ruu.nl From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.text.tex Message-ID: <2238@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> Date: 20 Dec 89 17:14:15 GMT References: <14650@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <865.25877f44@dayton.saic.com> <3601@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Sender: news@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Lines: 24 In-reply-to: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) In article , bob@MorningStar (Bob Sutterfield) writes: ` `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. This is not necessary, only the gateway from usenet to TeXhax needs to be moderated. I can imagine a moderator that filters out the messages from comp.text.tex that should go into TeXhax. This doesn't have to be the same as the TeXhax moderator, thereby sharing the workload. It could even be done by a couple of people (e.g. distributed by the message number modulo n, where n = the number of moderators). -- Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31-30-531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31-30-513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete')