* RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
@ 1998-08-27 0:00 Tim Ottinger
[not found] ` <H5oH1.634$495.190709860@newsreader.digex.net>
1998-10-28 0:00 ` CFV: " David Bostwick
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Tim Ottinger @ 1998-08-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group comp.object.moderated
comp.object.moderated A moderated forum for Object-oriented issues.
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup comp.object.moderated. This is
not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
details are below.
RATIONALE: comp.object.moderated
Object-oriented programming has long ago graduated from a niche study to
an industry force, so the discussion of things object-oriented has
likewise increased in general interest and audience. This surge has
increased the participation in comp.object so that it is difficult for
participants to keep up with the volume.
In addition, the comp.object newsgroup now receives a substantial
number of inappropriate posts, much of which are of little value or
interest to the community at large. The inappropriate postings have
caused many to cease participation due to the decreased signal-to-noise
ratio, and in some cases fear of reprisal.
There is therefore a need to provide a forum for which people with
interest in object-oriented theory and practice can freely and openly
discuss their problems and solutions, keep abreast of developments in
Object-oriented practice, and interact with their peers around the world
in a non-threatening manner without being harrassed by SPAM or articles
of otherwise inappropriate content.
In order to keep discussions centered on the issues of Object-oriented
theory and practice, encourage participation, and thereby better serve
the Object-oriented community in its entirety, a moderated discussion
group is required.
At the same time, there is also a demand for a continuing low-delay
unmoderated forum. Hence, this proposal is for the creation of a new
moderated group coupled with the existing unmoderated group comp.object.
This RFD favors this option because it interferes less with existing
practices and thus will more likely lead to manageable moderation
duties, and it parallels what was done with in the comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.C++, and thus is quite intuitive.
CHARTER: comp.object.moderated
Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community. Any
such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
approaches in response to questions directly related to Object-oriented
theory or practice.
Moderation Policy:
I PRINCIPLES
Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as concise
and useful as it can possibly be.
Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
respect to each article:
1) ON TOPIC
2) NO FLAMES
3) NO SPAM
4) NO NONSENSE
These goals are characterized as follows:
1) ON TOPIC
(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
in comp.object.moderated:
a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages,
b) Object-oriented tricks and techniques,
c) case studies,
d) issues of software engineering related to Object-oriented,
e) issues of software management related to Object-oriented,
f) issue of design philosophy related to Object-oriented,
g) design patterns related to Object-oriented, etc.
h) Object-oriented analysis techniques.
i) Object-oriented process.
j) Object-oriented tools.
k) Object-oriented Modeling.
l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to Object-
oriented techniques.
m) management and policy of the newsgroup.
Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.
If an article references products like tools, libraries or
platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
support questions.
WHEN IN DOUBT
An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator body
may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the earlier
one.
2) NO FLAMES
a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated. Those drive
away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't have
the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and not of
interest to the general Object-oriented audience.
b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
new people will choose not to participate. Personal feelings against
one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
practical reasons.
c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
contest with prizes for the winners.
In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
the issues at hand.
WHEN IN DOUBT
An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
3) NO NONSENSE
a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive use
of the forum.
b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
c) Trolls are nonsense.
d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.
In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with the
same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal. It is an
interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war board. It
belongs to the community of people whose work is the practice and theory
of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the newsgroup away from
that community, or turns the community away from the newsgroup, is not
welcome.
WHEN IN DOUBT
An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
4) NO SPAM
The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.
The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
spam in the following terms:
"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups..."
Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.
WHEN IN DOUBT
An article is rejected.
II MEANS
These goals are to be achieved as follows:
1) Automated format checking
If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected. The
poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection, depending
upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date: or Subject:
headers are not properly formatted.
2) Moderator Notes
Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
according to the policies stated above or to correct incomplete or
incorrect references.
The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in square
brackets will be -mod. Thus:
[text of the note. -mod].
Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures
Accepted articles are to be posted immediately. When an article is
rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g. "Rejected, violates:
[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."
The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy as
needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as needed.
4) Moderator Anonymity
Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator. As
such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to the
poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature will
be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be referred to
the moderator's hotline email address.
5) Appeal Policy
Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
article based upon their conclusion.
6) Moderator Posting Policy
Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other moderators
accepts it.
7) Moderator Body
The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
preserve the integrity of the appeal process.
When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
moderation policy.
H) FAQ
There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
may decide to delegate this work.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated
Moderator: Patrick Logan <plogan@teleport.com>
Moderator: Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca>
Moderator: Martijn Meijering <mmeijeri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
Moderator: John Goodsen <jgoodsen@saguarosoft.com>
Moderator: Rolf Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net>
Moderator: Yonat Sharon <yonat@usa.net>
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for
a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal
is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes
(CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants
it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD will be cross-posted to :
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
comp.lang.ada, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c++.moderated,
comp.std.c++, comp.lang.clos, comp.lang.eiffel,
comp.lang.java.programmer, comp.lang.python, comp.lang.smalltalk
comp.object.corba, comp.object.logic, comp.object
comp.software-eng, comp.lang.objective-c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <H5oH1.634$495.190709860@newsreader.digex.net>]
* CFV: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-08-27 0:00 RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Tim Ottinger
[not found] ` <H5oH1.634$495.190709860@newsreader.digex.net>
@ 1998-10-28 0:00 ` David Bostwick
1998-11-11 0:00 ` 2nd " David Bostwick
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: David Bostwick @ 1998-10-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
moderated group comp.object.moderated
Instructions for voting are just before the ballot itself. Please read
them before voting. If you have questions about the voting process,
ask the votetaker.
This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be
posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by
the votetaker, and it is not to be placed on the World Wide Web. Ballots
or CFVs provided by anyone except the votetaker will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
comp.object.moderated A moderated forum for Object-oriented issues. (Moderated)
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Nov 1998.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com>
Votetaker: David Bostwick <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>
RATIONALE: comp.object.moderated
Object-oriented programming has long ago graduated from a niche study
to an industry force, so the discussion of things object-oriented has
likewise increased in general interest and audience. This surge has
increased the participation in comp.object so that it is difficult for
participants to keep up with the volume.
In addition, the comp.object newsgroup now receives a substantial
number of inappropriate posts, much of which are of little value or
interest to the community at large, and a large number of which are
easily characterized as "flames" or "trolls".
For those who would like to have a greater signal-to-noise ratio
than is afforded in comp.object, we wish to create a second,
separate newsgroup which is moderated to reduce the occurrance
of spam, flames, trolls, and off-topic posts. In this way, the
newsgroup will cater to professionals with less time for scanning the
news, and those who wish to avoid flames.
The moderators of comp.object.moderated were elected by a
public, majority vote on comp.object and have produced a
policy which they feel will encourage OO discussions and
attract new readers and expert participants.
Comp.object will not be moderated, though. It will remain as an
alternative. On comp.object, one may have discussions on more
tangential topics. Comp.object.moderated merely provides the
readership with a well-focused, flame-free, spam-free choice.
CHARTER: comp.object.moderated
Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community.
Any such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
approaches in response to questions directly related to
Object-oriented theory or practice.
Moderation Policy:
I PRINCIPLES
Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as
concise and useful as it can possibly be.
Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
respect to each article:
1) ON TOPIC
2) NO FLAMES
3) NO SPAM
4) NO NONSENSE
These goals are characterized as follows:
1) ON TOPIC
(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
in comp.object.moderated:
a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages, b)
Object-oriented tricks and techniques, c) case studies, d) issues of
software engineering related to Object-oriented, e) issues of software
management related to Object-oriented, f) issue of design philosophy
related to Object-oriented, g) design patterns related to
Object-oriented, etc. h) Object-oriented analysis techniques. i)
Object-oriented process. j) Object-oriented tools. k) Object-oriented
Modeling. l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to
Object- oriented techniques. m) management and policy of the
newsgroup.
Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.
If an article references products like tools, libraries or
platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
support questions.
When in doubt:
An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator
body may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the
earlier one.
2) NO FLAMES
a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated. Those drive
away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't
have the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and
not of interest to the general Object-oriented audience.
b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
new people will choose not to participate. Personal feelings against
one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
practical reasons.
c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
contest with prizes for the winners.
In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
the issues at hand.
When in doubt:
An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
3) NO NONSENSE
a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive
use of the forum.
b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
c) Trolls are nonsense.
d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.
In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with
the same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal. It
is an interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war
board. It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
practice and theory of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the
newsgroup away from that community, or turns the community away from
the newsgroup, is not welcome.
When in doubt:
An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
4) NO SPAM
The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.
The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
spam in the following terms:
"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups..."
Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.
When in doubt:
An article is rejected.
II MEANS
These goals are to be achieved as follows:
1) Automated format checking
If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected.
The poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection,
depending upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date:
or Subject: headers are not properly formatted.
2) Moderator Notes
Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
topics drift from their original focus.
The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in
square brackets will be -mod. Thus:
[text of the note. -mod].
Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures
Accepted articles are to be posted immediately. When an article is
rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g. "Rejected, violates:
[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."
The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy
as needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as
needed.
4) Moderator Anonymity
Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator. As
such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to
the poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature
will be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be
referred to the moderator's hotline email address.
5) Appeal Policy
Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
article based upon their conclusion.
6) Moderator Posting Policy
Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other
moderators accepts it.
7) Moderator Body
The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
preserve the integrity of the appeal process.
When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
moderation policy.
H) FAQ
There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
may decide to delegate this work.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated
Moderator: Patrick Logan <plogan@teleport.com>
Moderator: Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca>
Moderator: Martijn Meijering <mmeijeri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
Moderator: John Goodsen <jgoodsen@saguarosoft.com>
Moderator: Rolf Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net>
Moderator: Yonat Sharon <yonat@usa.net>
Administrative contact address: comp.object.maintainer@oma.com
Article submission address: com.submit@oma.com
END MODERATOR INFO.
DISTRIBUTION:
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
comp.object.logic
comp.lang.c++
comp.lang.clos
comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.java
comp.lang.objective-c
comp.lang.python
comp.std.c++
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: READ THIS BEFORE VOTING
Only one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate votes
will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses and
votes of all voters will be listed in the final voting results post.
Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered to be anonymous votes.
The use of spam blockers or other munged addresses will prevent you from
receiving an acknowledgement of your vote. If the address cannot be
verified, the ballot will be disallowed.
Vote counting is automated, and failure to follow these directions may
mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an
acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker
about the problem. It is your responsibility to make sure your vote
is registered correctly.
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
uninterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
this CFV. Instead, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise
edited copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud.
When in doubt, ask the votetaker.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Don't worry
about the spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts. Please do not send the entire CFV back to me.
Fill in the ballot as shown below. Please provide a valid name and
indicate your desired vote in the appropriate locations inside the ballot.
When finished, MAIL the ballot to: <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>.
Just "replying" to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.
Examples of how to properly indicate your vote (do not vote here):
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
DO NOT modify, alter or delete any information in this ballot!
If you do, the voting software will probably reject your ballot.
If these instructions are unclear, please ask the votetaker.
======== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line =======
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Do not edit anything in this ballot, except to add your name and vote.
|
| 1ST CALL FOR VOTES: comp.object.moderated
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <COM-0001> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide a valid name, or your vote may be rejected. Place
| ONLY your name (i.e., do not include your e-mail address or any other
| information) after the colon on the line below.
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] comp.object.moderated
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
This CFV was created with uvpq 1.0 (Aug 27 1997).
PQ datestamp: 980322
--
Voting address : bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* 2nd CFV: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-28 0:00 ` CFV: " David Bostwick
@ 1998-11-11 0:00 ` David Bostwick
1998-11-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1998-11-19 0:00 ` RESULT: comp.object.moderated moderated passes 324:24 David Bostwick
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: David Bostwick @ 1998-11-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
moderated group comp.object.moderated
Instructions for voting are just before the ballot itself. Please read
them before voting. If you have questions about the voting process,
ask the votetaker.
This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be
posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by
the votetaker, and it is not to be placed on the World Wide Web. Ballots
or CFVs provided by anyone except the votetaker will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
comp.object.moderated A moderated forum for Object-oriented issues. (Moderated)
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Nov 1998.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com>
Votetaker: David Bostwick <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>
RATIONALE: comp.object.moderated
Object-oriented programming has long ago graduated from a niche study
to an industry force, so the discussion of things object-oriented has
likewise increased in general interest and audience. This surge has
increased the participation in comp.object so that it is difficult for
participants to keep up with the volume.
In addition, the comp.object newsgroup now receives a substantial
number of inappropriate posts, much of which are of little value or
interest to the community at large, and a large number of which are
easily characterized as "flames" or "trolls".
For those who would like to have a greater signal-to-noise ratio
than is afforded in comp.object, we wish to create a second,
separate newsgroup which is moderated to reduce the occurrance
of spam, flames, trolls, and off-topic posts. In this way, the
newsgroup will cater to professionals with less time for scanning the
news, and those who wish to avoid flames.
The moderators of comp.object.moderated were elected by a
public, majority vote on comp.object and have produced a
policy which they feel will encourage OO discussions and
attract new readers and expert participants.
Comp.object will not be moderated, though. It will remain as an
alternative. On comp.object, one may have discussions on more
tangential topics. Comp.object.moderated merely provides the
readership with a well-focused, flame-free, spam-free choice.
CHARTER: comp.object.moderated
Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community.
Any such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
approaches in response to questions directly related to
Object-oriented theory or practice.
Moderation Policy:
I PRINCIPLES
Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as
concise and useful as it can possibly be.
Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
respect to each article:
1) ON TOPIC
2) NO FLAMES
3) NO SPAM
4) NO NONSENSE
These goals are characterized as follows:
1) ON TOPIC
(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
in comp.object.moderated:
a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages, b)
Object-oriented tricks and techniques, c) case studies, d) issues of
software engineering related to Object-oriented, e) issues of software
management related to Object-oriented, f) issue of design philosophy
related to Object-oriented, g) design patterns related to
Object-oriented, etc. h) Object-oriented analysis techniques. i)
Object-oriented process. j) Object-oriented tools. k) Object-oriented
Modeling. l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to
Object- oriented techniques. m) management and policy of the
newsgroup.
Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.
If an article references products like tools, libraries or
platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
support questions.
When in doubt:
An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator
body may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the
earlier one.
2) NO FLAMES
a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated. Those drive
away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't
have the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and
not of interest to the general Object-oriented audience.
b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
new people will choose not to participate. Personal feelings against
one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
practical reasons.
c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
contest with prizes for the winners.
In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
the issues at hand.
When in doubt:
An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
3) NO NONSENSE
a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive
use of the forum.
b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
c) Trolls are nonsense.
d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.
In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with
the same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal. It
is an interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war
board. It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
practice and theory of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the
newsgroup away from that community, or turns the community away from
the newsgroup, is not welcome.
When in doubt:
An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
4) NO SPAM
The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.
The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
spam in the following terms:
"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups..."
Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.
When in doubt:
An article is rejected.
II MEANS
These goals are to be achieved as follows:
1) Automated format checking
If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected.
The poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection,
depending upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date:
or Subject: headers are not properly formatted.
2) Moderator Notes
Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
topics drift from their original focus.
The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in
square brackets will be -mod. Thus:
[text of the note. -mod].
Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures
Accepted articles are to be posted immediately. When an article is
rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g. "Rejected, violates:
[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."
The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy
as needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as
needed.
4) Moderator Anonymity
Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator. As
such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to
the poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature
will be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be
referred to the moderator's hotline email address.
5) Appeal Policy
Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
article based upon their conclusion.
6) Moderator Posting Policy
Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other
moderators accepts it.
7) Moderator Body
The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
preserve the integrity of the appeal process.
When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
moderation policy.
H) FAQ
There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
may decide to delegate this work.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated
Moderator: Patrick Logan <plogan@teleport.com>
Moderator: Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca>
Moderator: Martijn Meijering <mmeijeri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
Moderator: John Goodsen <jgoodsen@saguarosoft.com>
Moderator: Rolf Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net>
Moderator: Yonat Sharon <yonat@usa.net>
Administrative contact address: comp.object.maintainer@oma.com
Article submission address: com.submit@oma.com
END MODERATOR INFO.
DISTRIBUTION:
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
comp.object.logic
comp.lang.c++
comp.lang.clos
comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.java
comp.lang.objective-c
comp.lang.python
comp.std.c++
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: READ THIS BEFORE VOTING
Only one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate votes
will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses and
votes of all voters will be listed in the final voting results post.
Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered to be anonymous votes.
The use of spam blockers or other munged addresses will prevent you from
receiving an acknowledgement of your vote. If the address cannot be
verified, the ballot will be disallowed.
Vote counting is automated, and failure to follow these directions may
mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an
acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker
about the problem. It is your responsibility to make sure your vote
is registered correctly.
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
uninterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
this CFV. Instead, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise
edited copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud.
When in doubt, ask the votetaker.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Don't worry
about the spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts. Please do not send the entire CFV back to me.
Fill in the ballot as shown below. Please provide a valid name and
indicate your desired vote in the appropriate locations inside the ballot.
When finished, MAIL the ballot to: <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>.
Just "replying" to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.
Examples of how to properly indicate your vote (do not vote here):
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
DO NOT modify, alter or delete any information in this ballot!
If you do, the voting software will probably reject your ballot.
If these instructions are unclear, please ask the votetaker.
======== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line =======
..-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Do not edit anything in this ballot, except to add your name and vote.
|
| 2ND CALL FOR VOTES: comp.object.moderated
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <COM-0002> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide a valid name, or your vote may be rejected. Place
| ONLY your name (i.e., do not include your e-mail address or any other
| information) after the colon on the line below.
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] comp.object.moderated
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
This CFV was created with uvpq 1.0 (Aug 27 1997).
PQ datestamp: 980322
comp.object.moderated Bounce List - These ballots have been recorded
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
duncan@esatst.yc.estec.esa.nl Duncan Gibson
gregm_spam_bites@cc.gatech.edu Greg Montgomery
patrickl@servio.gemstone.com Patrick D. Logan
trimble@trimble.co.nz Nick Mein
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: 2nd CFV: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-11-11 0:00 ` 2nd " David Bostwick
@ 1998-11-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1998-11-19 0:00 ` RESULT: comp.object.moderated moderated passes 324:24 David Bostwick
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Doyle @ 1998-11-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Just in case the massive crossposting got this ejected from your
newsreader...
In article <910744959.17155@isc.org>,
David Bostwick <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
> LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> moderated group comp.object.moderated
>
>Instructions for voting are just before the ballot itself. Please read
>them before voting. If you have questions about the voting process,
>ask the votetaker.
>
>This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be
>posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by
>the votetaker, and it is not to be placed on the World Wide Web. Ballots
>or CFVs provided by anyone except the votetaker will be invalid.
>
>Newsgroups line:
>comp.object.moderated A moderated forum for Object-oriented issues. (Moderated)
>
>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Nov 1998.
>
>This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
>about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
>
>Proponent: Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com>
>
>Votetaker: David Bostwick <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>
>
>RATIONALE: comp.object.moderated
>
>Object-oriented programming has long ago graduated from a niche study
>to an industry force, so the discussion of things object-oriented has
>likewise increased in general interest and audience. This surge has
>increased the participation in comp.object so that it is difficult for
>participants to keep up with the volume.
>
>In addition, the comp.object newsgroup now receives a substantial
>number of inappropriate posts, much of which are of little value or
>interest to the community at large, and a large number of which are
>easily characterized as "flames" or "trolls".
>
>For those who would like to have a greater signal-to-noise ratio
>than is afforded in comp.object, we wish to create a second,
>separate newsgroup which is moderated to reduce the occurrance
>of spam, flames, trolls, and off-topic posts. In this way, the
>newsgroup will cater to professionals with less time for scanning the
>news, and those who wish to avoid flames.
>
>The moderators of comp.object.moderated were elected by a
>public, majority vote on comp.object and have produced a
>policy which they feel will encourage OO discussions and
>attract new readers and expert participants.
>
>Comp.object will not be moderated, though. It will remain as an
>alternative. On comp.object, one may have discussions on more
>tangential topics. Comp.object.moderated merely provides the
>readership with a well-focused, flame-free, spam-free choice.
>
>CHARTER: comp.object.moderated
>
>Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
>issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
>practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community.
>Any such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
>approaches in response to questions directly related to
>Object-oriented theory or practice.
>
>Moderation Policy:
>
>I PRINCIPLES
>
>Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
>posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
>comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
>Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
>professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as
>concise and useful as it can possibly be.
>
>Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
>respect to each article:
>
>1) ON TOPIC
>2) NO FLAMES
>3) NO SPAM
>4) NO NONSENSE
>
>These goals are characterized as follows:
>
>1) ON TOPIC
>
>(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
>in comp.object.moderated:
>
>a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages, b)
>Object-oriented tricks and techniques, c) case studies, d) issues of
>software engineering related to Object-oriented, e) issues of software
>management related to Object-oriented, f) issue of design philosophy
>related to Object-oriented, g) design patterns related to
>Object-oriented, etc. h) Object-oriented analysis techniques. i)
>Object-oriented process. j) Object-oriented tools. k) Object-oriented
>Modeling. l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to
>Object- oriented techniques. m) management and policy of the
>newsgroup.
>
>Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
>other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.
>
>If an article references products like tools, libraries or
>platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
>these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
>support questions.
>
>When in doubt:
>
>An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
>digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
>an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator
>body may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the
>earlier one.
>
>2) NO FLAMES
>
>a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated. Those drive
>away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't
>have the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and
>not of interest to the general Object-oriented audience.
>
>b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
>new people will choose not to participate. Personal feelings against
>one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
>audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
>for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
>practical reasons.
>
>c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
>whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
>
>d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
>considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
>contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
>
>d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
>disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
>contest with prizes for the winners.
>
>In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
>personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
>off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
>the issues at hand.
>
>When in doubt:
>
>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
>
>3) NO NONSENSE
>
>a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
>them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
>over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive
>use of the forum.
>
>b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
>c) Trolls are nonsense.
>d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.
>
>In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with
>the same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal. It
>is an interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war
>board. It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
>practice and theory of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the
>newsgroup away from that community, or turns the community away from
>the newsgroup, is not welcome.
>
>When in doubt:
>
>An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
>
>4) NO SPAM
>
>The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
>nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.
>
>The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
>spam in the following terms:
>"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
>inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
>or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
>of Usenet newsgroups..."
>
>Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
>legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
>spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
>rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.
>
>When in doubt:
>
>An article is rejected.
>
>II MEANS
>
>These goals are to be achieved as follows:
>
>1) Automated format checking
>
>If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
>aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
>article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected.
>The poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection,
>depending upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date:
>or Subject: headers are not properly formatted.
>
>2) Moderator Notes
>
>Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
>according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
>incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
>topics drift from their original focus.
>
>The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
>text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in
>square brackets will be -mod. Thus:
>
>[text of the note. -mod].
>
>Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
>Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
>only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
>
>3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures
>
>Accepted articles are to be posted immediately. When an article is
>rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
>subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
>list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
>specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g. "Rejected, violates:
>[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."
>
>The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
>article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
>notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy
>as needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as
>needed.
>
>4) Moderator Anonymity
>
>Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
>rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator. As
>such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to
>the poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature
>will be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be
>referred to the moderator's hotline email address.
>
>5) Appeal Policy
>
>Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
>moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
>moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
>article based upon their conclusion.
>
>6) Moderator Posting Policy
>
>Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
>written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other
>moderators accepts it.
>
>7) Moderator Body
>
>The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
>preserve the integrity of the appeal process.
>
>When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
>select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
>whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
>moderation policy.
>
>H) FAQ
>
>There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
>which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
>maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
>comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
>may decide to delegate this work.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated
>
>Moderator: Patrick Logan <plogan@teleport.com>
>Moderator: Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca>
>Moderator: Martijn Meijering <mmeijeri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
>Moderator: John Goodsen <jgoodsen@saguarosoft.com>
>Moderator: Rolf Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net>
>Moderator: Yonat Sharon <yonat@usa.net>
>Administrative contact address: comp.object.maintainer@oma.com
>Article submission address: com.submit@oma.com
>
>END MODERATOR INFO.
>
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups:
>
>comp.object.logic
>comp.lang.c++
>comp.lang.clos
>comp.lang.forth
>comp.lang.java
>comp.lang.objective-c
>comp.lang.python
>comp.std.c++
>
>IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: READ THIS BEFORE VOTING
>
>Only one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate votes
>will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses and
>votes of all voters will be listed in the final voting results post.
>
>Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous,
>forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
>forms are considered to be anonymous votes.
>
>The use of spam blockers or other munged addresses will prevent you from
>receiving an acknowledgement of your vote. If the address cannot be
>verified, the ballot will be disallowed.
>
>Vote counting is automated, and failure to follow these directions may
>mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an
>acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker
>about the problem. It is your responsibility to make sure your vote
>is registered correctly.
>
>The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of
>persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
>uninterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
>this CFV. Instead, direct people to the official CFV as posted to
>news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise
>edited copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud.
>When in doubt, ask the votetaker.
>
>HOW TO VOTE:
>
>Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the
>"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Don't worry
>about the spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
>reply inserts. Please do not send the entire CFV back to me.
>
>Fill in the ballot as shown below. Please provide a valid name and
>indicate your desired vote in the appropriate locations inside the ballot.
>
>When finished, MAIL the ballot to: <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>.
>Just "replying" to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.
>
>Examples of how to properly indicate your vote (do not vote here):
>
> [ YES ] example.yes.vote
> [ NO ] example.no.vote
> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
>
>DO NOT modify, alter or delete any information in this ballot!
>If you do, the voting software will probably reject your ballot.
>
>If these instructions are unclear, please ask the votetaker.
>
>======== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line =======
>..-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Do not edit anything in this ballot, except to add your name and vote.
>|
>| 2ND CALL FOR VOTES: comp.object.moderated
>| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <COM-0002> (Do not remove this line!)
>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Please provide a valid name, or your vote may be rejected. Place
>| ONLY your name (i.e., do not include your e-mail address or any other
>| information) after the colon on the line below.
>
>Voter name:
>
>| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
>| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
>
> Your Vote Newsgroup
> --------- -----------------------------------------------------------
>[ ] comp.object.moderated
>
>======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
>
>This CFV was created with uvpq 1.0 (Aug 27 1997).
>PQ datestamp: 980322
>
>comp.object.moderated Bounce List - These ballots have been recorded
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>duncan@esatst.yc.estec.esa.nl Duncan Gibson
>gregm_spam_bites@cc.gatech.edu Greg Montgomery
>patrickl@servio.gemstone.com Patrick D. Logan
>trimble@trimble.co.nz Nick Mein
--
--
Patrick Doyle
doylep@ecf.toronto.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* RESULT: comp.object.moderated moderated passes 324:24
1998-11-11 0:00 ` 2nd " David Bostwick
1998-11-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
@ 1998-11-19 0:00 ` David Bostwick
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: David Bostwick @ 1998-11-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 39774 bytes --]
RESULT
moderated group comp.object.moderated passes 324:24
There were 324 YES votes and 24 NO votes, for a total of 348 valid votes.
There were 5 abstains.
For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted. If no
serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the moderator of
news.announce.newgroups will create the group shortly thereafter.
Newsgroups line:
comp.object.moderated A moderated forum for Object-oriented issues. (Moderated)
The voting period ended at 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Nov 1998.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com>
Votetaker: David Bostwick <bostwick@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>
RATIONALE: comp.object.moderated
Object-oriented programming has long ago graduated from a niche study
to an industry force, so the discussion of things object-oriented has
likewise increased in general interest and audience. This surge has
increased the participation in comp.object so that it is difficult for
participants to keep up with the volume.
In addition, the comp.object newsgroup now receives a substantial
number of inappropriate posts, much of which are of little value or
interest to the community at large, and a large number of which are
easily characterized as "flames" or "trolls".
For those who would like to have a greater signal-to-noise ratio
than is afforded in comp.object, we wish to create a second,
separate newsgroup which is moderated to reduce the occurrance
of spam, flames, trolls, and off-topic posts. In this way, the
newsgroup will cater to professionals with less time for scanning the
news, and those who wish to avoid flames.
The moderators of comp.object.moderated were elected by a
public, majority vote on comp.object and have produced a
policy which they feel will encourage OO discussions and
attract new readers and expert participants.
Comp.object will not be moderated, though. It will remain as an
alternative. On comp.object, one may have discussions on more
tangential topics. Comp.object.moderated merely provides the
readership with a well-focused, flame-free, spam-free choice.
CHARTER: comp.object.moderated
Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community.
Any such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
approaches in response to questions directly related to
Object-oriented theory or practice.
Moderation Policy:
I PRINCIPLES
Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as
concise and useful as it can possibly be.
Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
respect to each article:
1) ON TOPIC
2) NO FLAMES
3) NO SPAM
4) NO NONSENSE
These goals are characterized as follows:
1) ON TOPIC
(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
in comp.object.moderated:
a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages, b)
Object-oriented tricks and techniques, c) case studies, d) issues of
software engineering related to Object-oriented, e) issues of software
management related to Object-oriented, f) issue of design philosophy
related to Object-oriented, g) design patterns related to
Object-oriented, etc. h) Object-oriented analysis techniques. i)
Object-oriented process. j) Object-oriented tools. k) Object-oriented
Modeling. l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to
Object- oriented techniques. m) management and policy of the
newsgroup.
Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.
If an article references products like tools, libraries or
platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
support questions.
When in doubt:
An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator
body may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the
earlier one.
2) NO FLAMES
a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated. Those drive
away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't
have the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and
not of interest to the general Object-oriented audience.
b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
new people will choose not to participate. Personal feelings against
one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
practical reasons.
c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
contest with prizes for the winners.
In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
the issues at hand.
When in doubt:
An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
3) NO NONSENSE
a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive
use of the forum.
b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
c) Trolls are nonsense.
d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.
In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with
the same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal. It
is an interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war
board. It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
practice and theory of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the
newsgroup away from that community, or turns the community away from
the newsgroup, is not welcome.
When in doubt:
An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
4) NO SPAM
The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.
The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
spam in the following terms:
"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups..."
Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.
When in doubt:
An article is rejected.
II MEANS
These goals are to be achieved as follows:
1) Automated format checking
If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected.
The poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection,
depending upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date:
or Subject: headers are not properly formatted.
2) Moderator Notes
Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
topics drift from their original focus.
The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in
square brackets will be -mod. Thus:
[text of the note. -mod].
Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures
Accepted articles are to be posted immediately. When an article is
rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g. "Rejected, violates:
[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."
The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy
as needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as
needed.
4) Moderator Anonymity
Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator. As
such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to
the poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature
will be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be
referred to the moderator's hotline email address.
5) Appeal Policy
Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
article based upon their conclusion.
6) Moderator Posting Policy
Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other
moderators accepts it.
7) Moderator Body
The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
preserve the integrity of the appeal process.
When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
moderation policy.
H) FAQ
There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
may decide to delegate this work.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated
Moderator: Patrick Logan <plogan@teleport.com>
Moderator: Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca>
Moderator: Martijn Meijering <mmeijeri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
Moderator: John Goodsen <jgoodsen@saguarosoft.com>
Moderator: Rolf Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net>
Moderator: Yonat Sharon <yonat@usa.net>
Administrative contact address: comp.object.maintainer@oma.com
Article submission address: com.submit@oma.com
END MODERATOR INFO.
comp.object.moderated Final Vote Ack
Voted Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1grotria [at] informatik.uni-hamburg.de Peter Grotrian
70672.1744 [at] compuserve.com John I. Moore, Jr.
aaw [at] ascham.demon.co.uk Anthony Willoughby
adam [at] flash.irvine.com Adam Beneschan
adrianh [at] victoriareal.co.uk Adrian Howard
ady [at] thermoteknix.co.uk Ady Coles
afrazer [at] ophelia.telstra.com.au Andrew Frazer
ahecht [at] mindspring.com Alan Hecht
alfred.gebert [at] systor.com Alfred Gebert
allender [at] erols.com John Allender
andy [at] ffaltd.demon.co.uk Andy Hunt
anilk [at] arbornet.org Anil Krishnamurthy
anupriyo [at] delphi.com Anupriyo Chakravarti
arielle [at] taronga.com Stephanie da Silva
ark [at] research.att.com Andrew Koenig
assfalg [at] dsi.unifi.it Jurgen Assfalg
a_bond [at] rinet.ru Anton Bondarenko
BAILEYK [at] SCHNEIDER.COM Kendall Bailey
balser [at] uke.uni-hamburg.de Markus Balser
barry.prescott [at] wanadoo.fr Barry Prescott
bbutton [at] insight-tech.com Brian Button
BCasiello [at] Banyan.com Brian Casiello
behrends [at] cse.msu.edu Reimer Behrends
bernhard.buergin [at] ubs.com Bernard Burgin
bert [at] dgb.nl Bert Bril
bijuthom [at] ibm.net Biju Thomas
bill [at] wadley.org Bill Wadley
binkley [at] bigfoot.com Brian Keith Oxley
bjv [at] herbison.com B.J. Herbison
bmiller [at] cccglobal.com Brian R. Miller
bodewig [at] bost.de Stefan Bodewig
booda [at] datasync.com Martin H. Booda
boud [at] rempt.xs4all.nl Boudewijn Rempt
bparsia [at] email.unc.edu Bijan Parsia
bpr [at] best.com Brian Rogoff
bradapp [at] enteract.com Brad Appleton
brand [at] nina.pagesz.net Jeff Brandenburg
Brane.Dernac [at] select-tech.si Brane Dernac
brangdon [at] cix.co.uk Dave Harris
britt [at] acm.org F. BRITT SNODGRASS
BrookeF [at] gvsi.com Brooke Fair
Brownsta [at] concentric.net Stan Brown
bsey [at] pobox.com Bill Seymour
burris [at] neosoft.com Rick A. Burris
c [at] nautronix.com.au carl johnson
c.stadler [at] delta-ii.de Christof Stadler
Caedmontwo [at] aol.com Troy Caedmon Parsons
cameron-mellor [at] deshaw.com Cameron Mellor
cd [at] tps.de Charles Dapp
Charles.Burton [at] evolving.com Chuck Burton
chrismck [at] earthlink.net Christine McKenna
Christian.Angerer [at] sea.ericsson.se Christian Angerer
christopher.varlese [at] broadnet.ascom.ch Christopher Varlese
ckf [at] majure.com Creighton K. Frommer
clayberg [at] smalltalksystems.com Eric Clayberg
coelho [at] dca.fee.unicamp.br Andre Luis Vasconcelos Coelho
craig [at] scot.demon.co.uk Craig Cockburn
crawley [at] dstc.edu.au Stephen Crawley
crocker [at] cig.mot.com Ron Crocker
CVilla [at] tekscan.com Charles W. Villa
czerwonka [at] corbatech.com Andy L. Czerwonka
dacut [at] ece.cmu.edu David A. Cuthbert
daniel.sundman [at] usa.net Daniel Sundman
danielp [at] interlog.com Daniel Parker
Danny.Lingman.lingman [at] nt.com Dan Lingman
dany.steyaert [at] ping.be Dany Steyaert
DasBuro.Com!mfx [at] DasBuro.com Markus Freericks
dave [at] goopot.demon.co.uk David Potts
Dave.Murrells [at] ehv.ce.philips.com David Murrells
davep [at] iisc.co.uk Dave Postill
daver [at] teleport.com D Reynolds
david [at] elqui.qant.ucl.ac.be David Massart
david [at] farrar.com David Farrar
david [at] pottage.demon.co.uk David Pottage <david [at] pottage.demon.co.u
david.price [at] research.nokia.com David Price
david.whipp [at] hl.siemens.de David Whipp
David_Keller [at] sealand.com David A. Keller
dbh [at] transarc.com David Hodge
dboucher [at] locus.ca Dominique Boucher
dc [at] panix.com David W. Crawford
dermot [at] clubi.ie Dermot Casey
DESiegel [at] aol.com D. E. Siegel
dittmann [at] gfai.de Stephan Dittmann
dittoC [at] ix.netcom.com David Cattarin
dkarr [at] nmo.gtegsc.com David M. Karr
dlmatt [at] canopus.bu.edu Dr. David L. Matthews
Dmckeon [at] swcp.com Denis McKeon
Dominique.Colnet [at] loria.fr Dominique Colnet
doylep [at] ecf.utoronto.ca Patrick Doyle
dpw [at] cs.arizona.edu Don Waugaman
DRaizen [at] dataware.com Dan Raizen
drybowski [at] email.com Daniel Rybowski
dsr [at] mail.lns.cornell.edu Dan Riley
duncan [at] esatst.yc.estec.esa.nl Duncan Gibson
e.blood [at] citr.com Eric Blood
ehoffman [at] fzi.de Ekkehard Hoffmann
ehsmalu [at] ehpt.com Mattias Lundstrom
Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard Uthke
ems [at] jrandom.com Erik Seaberg
eric [at] aerie-pr.com Eric G. Roesinger
eric.diamond [at] bankerstrust.com Eric Diamond
eridani [at] databasix.com Belinda
esap [at] cs.tut.fi Esa Pulkkinen
escowles [at] gort.ucsd.edu Esme Cowles
ewan_benson [at] hotmail.com Ewan Benson
e_j_m [at] yahoo.com Eric Miller
FALE [at] skidata.com Leopold Faschalek
falk.bruegmann [at] student.uni-augsburg.de Falk Bruegmann
fche [at] cygnus.com Frank Ch. Eigler
fischerd [at] rd.hydro.on.ca Daniel Fischer
fjh [at] cs.mu.OZ.AU Fergus Henderson
Frank_Adrian [at] firstdatabank.com Frank A. Adrian
franz [at] mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Franz Puntigam
Franz.Seiser [at] sea.ericsson.se Franz Seiser
fredrik [at] pythonware.com Fredrik Lundh
f_clerc [at] effix.fr Fabrice Clerc
g.h.smith [at] marconicomms.com Graham Smith
gavan [at] magna.com.au Gavan Schneider
gboes [at] ashfordtech.com Greg Boes
gdosreis [at] sophia.inria.fr Gabriel Dos Reis
gelderen [at] mediaport.org Jeroen C. van Gelderen
geneo [at] Rational.Com Gene Ouye
Geoff_Odhner [at] franklin.com Geoffrey Odhner
gerald.zottl [at] sea.ericsson.se Gerald Zottl
gerhard.menzl [at] sea.ericsson.se Gerhard Menzl
graham [at] parana.pentacom.co.uk Graham Ward
gregfra [at] iname.com Greg Franklin
gregm_spam_bites [at] cc.gatech.edu Greg Montgomery
grenning [at] oma.com James W. Grenning
gsez020 [at] compo.bedford.waii.com Pete Forman
guymacon [at] deltanet.com guymacon [at] deltanet.com (Guy Macon)
harry.protoolis [at] nautronix.com.au Harry Protoolis
harvey [at] iupui.edu James Harvey
heiler [at] rumms.uni-mannheim.de Matthias Heiler
holger [at] wizards.de Holger Hoffstaette
hslama [at] datacomm.ch Heribert Slama
hubert [at] patrol.i-way.co.uk Hubert Matthews
hymie [at] prolifics.com Hyman Rosen
hyphen [at] xs4all.nl Carlo Hogeveen
ica2ph [at] csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de Peter Hermann
James.Bridson [at] ks.sel.alcatel.de James M. Bridson
James.Weirich [at] sdrc.com Jim Weirich
jamesr [at] objectshare.com James A. Robertson
james_wolffe [at] ny.essd.northgrum.com James Wolffe
jap [at] interaccess.com Jeff Pleimling
jb [at] mail.com John Burton
jcoffin [at] taeus.com Jerry Coffin
jdassen [at] wi.leidenuniv.nl J.H.M. Dassen
jeff [at] mdli.com Jeff Younker
jgoodsen [at] radsoft.com John Goodsen
jharby [at] san.rr.com John Harby
jhg [at] acm.org James Garrison
jim.ancona [at] geac.com Jim Ancona
jkr [at] phon1.ikp.uni-bonn.de Juergen Kraemer
joachim.durchholz [at] munich.netsurf.de Joachim Durchholz
joet [at] cse.unsw.edu.au Joe Thurbon
johanj [at] acm.org Johan Johansson
jonboy [at] onlink.net Trevor Tymchuk
JonesR [at] tetraworld.com Rick Jones
josef.fromwald [at] sea.ericsson.se Josef Fromwald
jpotter [at] falcon.lhup.edu John Potter
jsiegle [at] phoenix.lhup.edu Jonathan Siegle
julesd [at] erols.com Jules Dubois
junga [at] leo.org Achim Jung
juris [at] rfb.lv Juris Krikis
K.Hagan [at] thermoteknix.co.uk Ken Hagan
kapson [at] mays.Central.Sun.COM John Kapson
kderrick [at] my-dejanews.com Keith Derrick
keegansj [at] perkin-elmer.com Stephen Keegan
keesey [at] us.ibm.com James Keesey
kelley [at] ruralnet.net Kevin Kelley
Kevin [at] RightWall.com Kevin H Blenkinsopp
kielmann [at] cs.vu.nl Thilo Kielmann
klein [at] newmonics.com Andrew Klein
KousenKA [at] utrc.utc.com Kenneth A. Kousen
kpascoe [at] ford.com Kathy Pascoe
kwong [at] cs.ubc.ca Ken Wong
larrybr [at] seanet.com Larry Brasfield
lee.s.fields [at] usa.dupont.com Lee S. Fields
lindstrom [at] oma.com Lowell Lindstrom
Link [at] decrc.abb.de Johannes Link
list-votes [at] dream.kn-bremen.de Martin Schr"oder
llgerholz [at] mmm.com Laurie Gerholz
MacDonaldRJ [at] bv.com Richard
macgyver [at] dcc.ufmg.br Cassio Pennachin
maeder [at] glue.ch Thomas Maeder
mahesh [at] paragon-software.com B.G. Mahesh
mal [at] bewoner.dma.be Lieven Marchand
malay [at] miel.mot.com Malay Vaishanv
mamcdow [at] ia.net Mark A. McDowell
manfred.schneider [at] rhein-neckar.de Manfred Schneider
marco_dallaGasperina [at] mentorg.com Marco Dalla Gasperina
mark [at] hsi.com Mark Sicignano
mark.fussell [at] chimu.com Mark Fussell
Mark.Wright [at] NBNZ.CO.NZ Mark Wright
Matt.Terski [at] mchugh.com Matthew A. Terski
Matthew.Helliwell [at] dresdnerkb.com Matt Helliwell
matts [at] shore.net Matt Sullivan
mayp [at] tibco.com Patrick May
mcbreenp [at] cadvision.com Pete McBreen
mckewan [at] tmqaustin.com Andrew McKewan
mdick [at] insect.sd.monash.edu.au Martin Dick
mfl [at] sams.co.uk Martin Flower
mgc [at] cs.rmit.edu.au Michael Chamberlain
Michael.McMahon.mmcmahon [at] nt.com Michael McMahon
Michel.Clamagirand [at] alcatel.fr Michel Clamagirand
michi [at] dstc.edu.au Michi Henning
Mike.Parmley [at] postoffice.co.uk Mike Parmley
millette [at] bigfoot.com Robin Y. Millette
mkc [at] sky.net Mike Coleman
mlievaart [at] orion.nl Martijn Lievaart
mmeijeri [at] wi.leidenuniv.nl Martijn Meijering
mmquinn1 [at] mmm.com Michael M. Quinn
mooring [at] antares.Tymnet.COM Ed Mooring
mshoemaker [at] insight-tech.com Michael Shoemaker
mslamm [at] mscc.huji.ac.il Ehud Lamm
msundararajan [at] ibs-ltd.co.uk Mukundan Sundararajan
murphyjr [at] mags.net James R. Murphy
nab [at] acm.org Neville Black
naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian Weisgerber
nate [at] mcnamara.net Nate McNamara
newkirk [at] oma.com James Newkirk
Nick.Mein [at] trimble.co.nz Nick Mein
NickKetter [at] mindspring.com Nicholas J Ketter
nidoyle [at] nortel.ca Nicholas Doyle
np [at] stardivision.de Nikolai Pretzell
objetos [at] satlink.com Miguel J. Pinkas
olczyk [at] interaccess.com Thaddeus L. Olczyk
oliva [at] dcc.unicamp.br Alexandre Oliva
oliverr [at] pop.erols.com Robert G. Oliver
ottinger [at] oma.com Tim Ottinger
P.Roberts [at] perth.wgc.com.au Paul Roberts
pachling [at] kapsch.net Walter Pachlinger
palecoin [at] my-dejanews.com Pascal LECOINTE
patrickl [at] servio.gemstone.com Patrick D. Logan
pats [at] acm.org Patricia Shanahan
paul.grealish [at] uk.geopak-tms.com Paul Grealish
Paul.Webster.paulweb [at] nt.com Paul Webster
pch [at] verdi.iisd.sra.com Peter C. Halverson
per.angstrom [at] mind.nu Per �ngstr�m
peter [at] weblogic.com Peter Seibel
peter.lindgren [at] emw.ericsson.se Peter Lindgren
pezzini [at] ibm.net Igor Pezzini
pgoodwin [at] my-dejanews.com Phil Goodwin
phil [at] panix.com Phil Gustafson
phil [at] paule.demon.co.uk Philip William Britton
philip [at] preston20.freeserve.co.uk Philip Preston
plogston [at] yahoo.com Paul Logston
polemic [at] iinet.net.au Richard Puchmayer
poleur [at] crpcu.lu Michel Poleur
porter.clark [at] msfc.nasa.gov J. Porter Clark
potargen [at] imec.be Freddy Potargent
prudrakshala [at] statestreet.com Purush Rudrakshala
pschow [at] advtech.uswest.com Peter Schow
psnorby [at] cacd.rockwell.com P.S. Norby
qranian [at] lmera.ericsson.se Niklas Storm
Ralf.Comtesse [at] microtool.de Ralf
rapp [at] lmr.com Larry Rappaport
rbinder [at] rbsc.com Robert V. Binder
reissing [at] informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Ralf Reissing
rfkat [at] ibm.net Rolf F. Katzenberger
rgarcia4 [at] darwin.helios.nd.edu Ronald Garcia
rich [at] dsp.sps.mot.com Richard Bartlett
rick [at] bcm.tmc.edu Richard Miller
ricksand [at] mediaone.net Rick Sanderson
riddle [at] Iname.com Steve Riddle
ritzmann [at] trshp.ntc.nokia.com Fabian Ritzmann
rkirti [at] ix.netcom.com Rituraj Kirti
rmartin [at] oma.com Robert C. Martin
Robert.Lukassen [at] ehv.ce.philips.com Robert J. Lukassen
roland [at] inherit.se Roland Hedayat</BLOCKQUOTE>
rracine [at] draper.com Roger Racine
rstamerjohn [at] QGRAPH.COM Ralph Stamerjohn
rufinus [at] mbe.ece.wisc.edu J Rufinus
russ_freeman [at] hotmail.com Russ Freeman
rvaitk [at] soften.ktu.lt Raimundas Vaitkevicius
s.sudik [at] larc.nasa.gov Steven Sudik
safa [at] icrl.mew.co.jp Laurent SAFA
salter [at] chrontech.com Steven Salter
Sandy.Grosvenor [at] gsfc.nasa.gov Sandy Grosvenor
sbo [at] psy.med.uni-muenchen.de Boris Schaefer
schlegel [at] informatik.uni-rostock.de J=FCrgen Schlegelmilch
schmidt [at] cs.wustl.edu Douglas C. Schmidt
schuerig [at] acm.org Michael Schuerig
seriakov [at] aha.ru George Seriakov
sferris [at] tiny.net Scott M. Ferris
sgb [at] praxis-cs.co.uk Stephen Bull
shrum [at] hpnut.fc.hp.com Ken Shrum
simon [at] icpdd.neca.nec.com.au Simon A. Crase
simon.guest [at] roke.co.uk Simon Guest
simonwillcocks [at] enterprise.net Simon Willcocks
sintzoff [at] art.alcatel.fr Andr=E9 Sintzoff
source [at] netcom.com David Harmon
squeegee [at] concentric.net Stephen C. Gilardi
srini_n1 [at] verifone.com Srinivasan N.
srs [at] vuse.vanderbilt.edu Stephen R. Schach
steve.banks [at] marketdatasys.com Steve Banks
Susan.Allen [at] PSS.Boeing.com Susan A. Allen
sven [at] sass.de Sven Sass
swelham [at] mlswa.uk.lucent.com Stuart Welham
tannhauser [at] crf.canon.fr Falk Tannh=E4user
tc [at] gauss.muc.de Matthias Hoelzl
thomas.land [at] rhein-main.net Thomas Land
tmoore [at] celwave.com Thomas Moore
tony.payton [at] gecm.com Tony Payton
trajon [at] fred.net Jon Poletti
travis [at] SEDSystems.ca Shane Travis
treid [at] primenet.com Tom Reid
tseaver [at] palladion.com Tres Seaver
va [at] org.chemie.uni-frankfurt.de Volker Apelt
vijay [at] CellNet.com Vijay Ramachandran
vote-n-run [at] huug.demon.nl huug
westphal [at] acm.org Frank Westphal
wilba [at] bigfoot.com Alan Williams
winkler [at] balancetechnology.com Peter K. Winkler
wkdugan [at] ix.netcom.com Bill Dugan
wolf.siberski [at] rwg.de Wolf Siberski
wolfgang.poechgraber [at] sea.ericsson.se Wolfgang Poechgraber
xanthian [at] well.com Kent Paul Dolan
yardley [at] interlog.com Graham N. Yardley
yCothouit [at] teaser.fr Domenikos Theotokopoulos
yonat [at] email.com Ron Yonat
yonat [at] usa.net Yonat Sharon
zach [at] instantplanet.com Zach Baker
Voted No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aj [at] arthur.rhein-neckar.de Andreas Jaeger
AlanM [at] hpdi.demon.co.uk Alan Macro
brownbear [at] earthdome.com Ira Brown
capitaljo [at] fexnet.com Jodie Ballast
Dale.A.Force [at] lerc.nasa.gov Dale Force
dialysis [at] starplace.com Guy Marciano
dringhof [at] linktrader.com Doc Ringhoff
ell [at] access.digex.net Elliott Coates
erigbadj [at] postmaster.co.uk Eric Badger
fayet [at] nancy.inra.fr Guy FAYET
ferret [at] enteract.com Karl Meyer
Hein.Roehrig [at] cwi.nl Hein Roehrig
hougen [at] cs.umn.edu Dean Hougen
kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn
knemeyer [at] ix.netcom.com Manfred Knemeyer
laverno [at] pacbell.net La Vern R. Ogden
madhusudhan.r.doddabele [at] lmco.com madhu
olav [at] viking.mv.com Olav Nieuwejaar
phil [at] pfsystems.com Phil Stenson
RBaker6223 [at] aol.com Ray Baker
sean.duffy [at] goldengate.net Sean Duffy
stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown
territickle [at] heartthrob.com Terri DeSistoh
wakelyn [at] pinn.net N. T. Wakelyn
Abstained
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AshleyB [at] halcyon.com Ashley Yakeley
chris [at] kzim.com Christopher Robin Zimmerman
gjohnson [at] dream.season.com Gary Johnson
murray-paul [at] usa.net Paul Murray
rich [at] vax2.concordia.ca Rich Lafferty
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
@ 1998-10-09 0:00 Tim Ottinger
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Tim Ottinger @ 1998-10-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group comp.object.moderated
comp.object.moderated A moderated forum for Object-oriented issues.
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup comp.object.moderated. This
is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
Proponent Tim Ottinger listed, with notes as to who owns the mod.
equipment.
Addition of allowance for moderation comments to suggest that Subject
lines are changed.
RATIONALE: comp.object.moderated
Object-oriented programming has long ago graduated from a niche study
to an industry force, so the discussion of things object-oriented has
likewise increased in general interest and audience. This surge has
increased the participation in comp.object so that it is difficult for
participants to keep up with the volume.
In addition, the comp.object newsgroup now receives a substantial
number of inappropriate posts, much of which are of little value or
interest to the community at large. The inappropriate postings have
caused many to cease participation due to the decreased
signal-to-noise ratio, and in some cases fear of reprisal.
There is therefore a need to provide a forum for which people with
interest in object-oriented theory and practice can freely and openly
discuss their problems and solutions, keep abreast of developments in
Object-oriented practice, and interact with their peers around the
world in a non-threatening manner without being harrassed by SPAM or
articles of otherwise inappropriate content.
In order to keep discussions centered on the issues of Object-oriented
theory and practice, encourage participation, and thereby better serve
the Object-oriented community in its entirety, a moderated discussion
group is required.
At the same time, there is also a demand for a continuing low-delay
unmoderated forum. Hence, this proposal is for the creation of a new
moderated group coupled with the existing unmoderated group
comp.object.
This RFD favors this option because it interferes less with existing
practices and thus will more likely lead to manageable moderation
duties, and it parallels what was done with in the comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.C++, and thus is quite intuitive.
CHARTER: comp.object.moderated
Comp.object.moderated is a moderated news group for discussion of
issues directly related to Object-oriented theory and Object-oriented
practice, and of general interest to the Object-oriented community.
Any such articles are welcome, and are recommendations of alternative
approaches in response to questions directly related to
Object-oriented theory or practice.
Moderation Policy:
I PRINCIPLES
Moderation is desired to attract and maintain participation by old
posters, new posters, and especially expert posters. To do so,
comp.object.moderated provides a non-threatening forum for discussing
Object-oriented practice and theory. To attract and maintain a large
professional readership this policy ensures that the forum is as
concise and useful as it can possibly be.
Here is what this moderation policy is intended to achieve with
respect to each article:
1) ON TOPIC
2) NO FLAMES
3) NO SPAM
4) NO NONSENSE
These goals are characterized as follows:
1) ON TOPIC
(Discussions of) the following subjects are regarded as being on topic
in comp.object.moderated:
a) the syntax and semantics of various Object-oriented languages,
b) Object-oriented tricks and techniques,
c) case studies,
d) issues of software engineering related to Object-oriented,
e) issues of software management related to Object-oriented,
f) issue of design philosophy related to Object-oriented,
g) design patterns related to Object-oriented, etc.
h) Object-oriented analysis techniques.
i) Object-oriented process.
j) Object-oriented tools.
k) Object-oriented Modeling.
l) any and all other discussions relating or pertaining to Object-
oriented techniques.
m) management and policy of the newsgroup.
Articles may be rejected as being off-topic if there are
other, more specific newsgroups to which they belong.
If an article references products like tools, libraries or
platforms, it is still acceptable if the article just mentions
these products as illustrations or examples and abstains from
support questions.
When In Doubt:
An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
digressions in a thread. In order to keep the noise level low, if such
an article has already been accepted in recent days, the moderator
body may decide to reject the newer one and refer the author to the
earlier one.
2) NO FLAMES
a) No threats or attempts at intimidation are tolerated. Those drive
away audience. New posters are intimidated by it, and experts don't
have the time or energy to waste on it. Such things are personal, and
not of interest to the general Object-oriented audience.
b) No disrespect towards others is tolerated. When people are unkind,
new people will choose not to participate. Personal feelings against
one or another are not of interest to the general Object-oriented
audience. People should read all ideas, and choose the ones that work
for them, and a poor idea should be shown to be poor by technical or
practical reasons.
c) No disdainful or belittling articles are tolerated, no matter
whether the contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
disallowed. Participation in a comp.object.moderated thread is not a
contest with prizes for the winners.
In essence, all attempts to hijack comp.object.moderated to wage a
personal attack would not only be counter-productive, but also
off-topic. When people speak against each other, they've lost focus on
the issues at hand.
When In Doubt:
An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
3) NO NONSENSE
a) FAQs aren't nonsense, but the repeated posting and answering of
them is. Nobody wants to read the exact same questions and answers
over and over. It's a burden on the reader that gates his productive
use of the forum.
b) Verbatim or slightly rephrased reposts are nonsense.
c) Trolls are nonsense.
d) Binaries are considered inappropriate in this newsgroup.
In short, comp.object.moderated should be a forum you can read with
the same confidence you have reading a manual or technical journal.
It is an interactive professional forum, not a hobbyist board or a war
board. It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
practice and theory of Object-Orientation, and anything that turns the
newsgroup away from that community, or turns the community away from
the newsgroup, is not welcome.
When In Doubt:
An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
4) NO SPAM
The war on SPAM is the war to maintain control of the professional
nature and the signal-to-noise ratio of a newsgroup.
The Jargon File (http://sagan.earthspace.net/jargon) describes
spam in the following terms:
"...To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. [...] To send many identical
or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups..."
Whatever a moderator has to do to stop SPAM without rejecting
legitimate posts is good. If stopping spam means blacklisting
spam-posters, then so be it. If it involves building complex filtering
rules, fine. If it is easily handled by rejecting posts, fine again.
When In Doubt:
An article is rejected.
II MEANS
These goals are to be achieved as follows:
1) Automated format checking
If the posted article is not properly formatted (i.e. the news headers
aren't right -- your news software should take care of this) or if the
article is larger than 50KB, then it will be automatically rejected.
The poster may or may not be notified of this kind of rejection,
depending upon just how bad the headers were. Articles without Date:
or Subject: headers are not properly formatted.
2) Moderator Notes
Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
topics drift from their original focus.
The form of those notes will always be the same. They will composed of
text in square brackets. The last four characters of the text in
square brackets will be -mod. Thus:
[text of the note. -mod].
Moderators will be extremely conservative with their use of notes.
Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
3) Acceptance and Rejection Procedures
Accepted articles are to be posted immediately. When an article is
rejected by a moderator, it will be emailed back to the poster. The
subject of the email message will be: "Rejected, violates: [reason
list]." where reason list is a comma separated list of the codes
specified in the acceptance criteria above. e.g. "Rejected, violates:
[ON TOPIC, NO FLAMES c)]."
The moderator should include moderator notes in the body of the
article that explain why the article was rejected. The format of those
notes should be as specified above, but they can be as brief or wordy
as needed to get the point across. There also may be as many as
needed.
4) Moderator Anonymity
Moderators act as a single body. Any rejection should be viewed as a
rejection by the moderators and not by any particular moderator. As
such, the identity of the rejecting moderator will not be exposed to
the poster whose article was rejected (i.e. the moderator's signature
will be stripped). Any questions that the poster may have can be
referred to the moderator's hotline email address.
5) Appeal Policy
Any poster of a rejected message may appeal that rejection to the
moderators by emailing the article to the moderators' hotline. The
moderators will review the rejection and either post or reject the
article based upon their conclusion.
6) Moderator Posting Policy
Moderators are not allowed to moderate their own articles. No article
written by a moderator will be posted unless one of the other
moderators accepts it.
7) Moderator Body
The number of moderators shall not become less than five, so as to
preserve the integrity of the appeal process.
When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
moderation policy.
H) FAQ
There will be a collection of answers to comp.object.moderated FAQs
which is made publicly and freely available. The moderator body
maintains, extends and publishes this FAQ document and points the
comp.object.moderated readers to it as appropriate. The moderator body
may decide to delegate this work.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: comp.object.moderated
Moderator: Patrick Logan <plogan@teleport.com>
Moderator: Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca>
Moderator: Martijn Meijering <mmeijeri@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
Moderator: John Goodsen <jgoodsen@saguarosoft.com>
Moderator: Rolf Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net>
Moderator: Yonat Sharon <yonat@usa.net>
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD will be cross-posted to:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
comp.object
comp.lang.eiffel
comp.lang.smalltalk
comp.lang.java.programmer
comp.lang.ada
comp.object.corba
comp.software-eng
Proponent: Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com>
Tim will be managing the moderation software on
equipment owned by Object Mentor, though this is
subject to change.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-09 0:00 RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Tim Ottinger
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-31 0:00 ` Ell
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
2 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Tim Ottinger" <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:
I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation. After
reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
group and to deflect criticism away from them. There is every reason
still to: VOTE NO!
Section 1)
>When In Doubt:
>
>An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
>digressions in a thread.
Why? An alleged motivation for moderation is to stop off-topic posts.
This is subjective and allows the moderators to OK anything they
favor.
Bad. Subjective
Section 2)
>d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
>considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
>contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
Why, if it can be *substantiated*? That is if there is evidence to
back up such questioning.
>d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
>disallowed.
Bad. Should no be allowed at. This makes it subjective. Moderators
can allow a stream of what they consider to "light-hearted"
one-upsmanships. These may reflect a bias of the moderators.
>When In Doubt:
>
>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
The contradicts the immediately above. The immediately above should
be dropped period.
>It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
>practice and theory of Object-Orientation,
This is subjective. We have fundamental difference now on what is OO,
and even what is an object.
>When In Doubt:
>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
>When In Doubt:
>An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
?? 2 opposite policies for "When In Doubt"
>2) Moderator Notes
>
>Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
>according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
>incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
>topics drift from their original focus.
>Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
>only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
Terrible! There should be *no* moderator notes. This can too easily
be abused and made source and stream of biased opinions. If a
moderator passes an article and wants to correct something they should
repost.
Section 7)
>7) Moderator Body
>When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
>select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
>whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
>moderation policy.
Horrible! Not only life terms, but moderators then get to select new
moderators. Totally undemocratic, and oligarchic.
So the supposed joke between proposed moderators about inheriting
moderator positions wasn't so much of a joke.
Nothing could be clearer that moderation is about one group taking
control of discussion and shielding its ideology and practice from
criticism.
Elliott Coates
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! :=***=:
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: James Robertson @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]
Then feel free to keep posting in the unmoderated comp.object. I for one
would welcome a moderated group as an accessory to the unmoderated one.
Ell wrote:
> "Tim Ottinger" <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:
>
> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation. After
> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
> group and to deflect criticism away from them. There is every reason
> still to: VOTE NO!
--
Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library
<Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of ObjectShare>
[-- Attachment #2: Card for James Robertson --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 447 bytes --]
begin: vcard
fn: James Robertson
n: Robertson;James
org: ObjectShare, Inc.
adr: 10440 Little Patuxent Parkway;;Suite 900;Columbia;MD;21045;USA
email;internet: jamesr@objectshare.com
title: Senior Sales Engineer
tel;work: 410 884-4042
tel;fax: 410 884-4016
tel;home: 410 730-6579
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
James Robertson wrote:
>Ell wrote:
>>
>> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
>> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation. After
>> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
>> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
>> group and to deflect criticism away from them. There is every reason
>> still to: VOTE NO!
: Then feel free to keep posting in the unmoderated comp.object. I for one
: would welcome a moderated group as an accessory to the unmoderated one.
It should be more than a matter of simply having a moderated group. The
thing is under what conditions?
Did you read really the heinous rules for the group. Did you fail to see
the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
and wishes can predominate? They can do this by allowing "short" (what's
short?) one-upsmanship posts! They can also do it by posting personal
remarks in posts. Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
electing new moderators?! Not to mention that moderators are elected for
life!
Why should they use Usenet to advance one view? Why should they be
allowed to wrap themselves in the flag of comp. to shield themselves from
criticism?
Elliott
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: James Robertson @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1700 bytes --]
Ell wrote:
> James Robertson wrote:
>
> >Ell wrote:
> >>
> Did you read really the heinous rules for the group. Did you fail to see
> the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
> and wishes can predominate? They can do this by allowing "short" (what's
> short?) one-upsmanship posts! They can also do it by posting personal
> remarks in posts. Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
> electing new moderators?! Not to mention that moderators are elected for
> life!
So what ? If they end up doing a poor job, no one will post and the group will
die - all the traffic would saty in the unmoderated forum. If they do a good
job, then intelligent discussion will tend to migrate towards the moderated
forum.
No one is holding a gun to anyone's head - we can all read whatever we like,
and post to any group we want. The addition of a group (moderated or not)
<expands> choices.
>
>
> Why should they use Usenet to advance one view? Why should they be
> allowed to wrap themselves in the flag of comp. to shield themselves from
> criticism?
>
> Elliott
> --
> :=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
> MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
> :=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
> Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
> Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
> Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
> without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
--
Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library
<Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of ObjectShare>
[-- Attachment #2: Card for James Robertson --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 447 bytes --]
begin: vcard
fn: James Robertson
n: Robertson;James
org: ObjectShare, Inc.
adr: 10440 Little Patuxent Parkway;;Suite 900;Columbia;MD;21045;USA
email;internet: jamesr@objectshare.com
title: Senior Sales Engineer
tel;work: 410 884-4042
tel;fax: 410 884-4016
tel;home: 410 730-6579
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1 sibling, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michi Henning @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:
> Did you read really the heinous rules for the group. Did you fail to see
> the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
> and wishes can predominate?
That is the nature of editorial control. No amount of rules will fix this.
> Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
> electing new moderators?! Not to mention that moderators are elected for
> life!
Good thing too. Moderators are typically highly-dedicated individuals who
are experts in the topic of the group. I am personally much more happy
with one moderator appointing another one than I am with a democracy
where half the people who vote don't have the wherewithal to make an
informed decision about a moderator's competency and then end up voting
for the moderator who can make the most noise and runs the best advertising
campaign.
When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
better than a democracy...
Cheers,
Michi.
Copyright 1998 Michi Henning. All rights reserved.
--
Michi Henning +61 7 33654310
DSTC Pty Ltd +61 7 33654311 (fax)
University of Qld 4072 michi@dstc.edu.au
AUSTRALIA http://www.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/michi-henning.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Sven Sass
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Logan @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In comp.object Michi Henning <michi@dstc.edu.au> wrote:
: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
: better than a democracy...
It's just a stupid newsgroup. We're just going to try to keep the
noise out of it. We are not going to save the world. We are not going
to get paid or take bribes. We are not going to promote any views. We
just want to keep the noise out of a stupid Usenet discussion group
about programming for cryin' out loud.
This has nothing to do with "benevolent dictatorships"!!!
--
Patrick Logan (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com
(W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com
http://www.gemstone.com
"I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1 sibling, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In comp.object Michi Henning <michi@dstc.edu.au> wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:
:> Did you read really the heinous rules for the group. Did you fail to see
:> the way that moderators can operate in way such that subjective desires
:> and wishes can predominate?
: That is the nature of editorial control. No amount of rules will fix this.
You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
be allowed.
:> Did you fail to see that there is no provision for
:> electing new moderators?! Not to mention that moderators are elected for
:> life!
: Good thing too. Moderators are typically highly-dedicated individuals who
: are experts in the topic of the group. I am personally much more happy
: with one moderator appointing another one than I am with a democracy
: where half the people who vote don't have the wherewithal to make an
: informed decision about a moderator's competency and then end up voting
: for the moderator who can make the most noise and runs the best advertising
: campaign.
There's no excuse for dictatorship!
: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
: better than a democracy...
I totally disagree!
VOTE NO AGAINST BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP!
Elliott
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1 sibling, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Logan @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
: You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
: be allowed.
A moderator that bends the mentioned rules for "one upmanship" would
be in violation of the rules and would receive more than a little
wrath from the others.
Also each moderator has stated a reluctance to use these specific
rules even to the fullest extent expressed in the rules, per se. These
rules are from other moderated groups, they seem to work, and yet the
moderators for this RFD have expressed reluctance to employ them to
any great extent.
--
Patrick Logan (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com
(W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com
http://www.gemstone.com
"I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Charles Hixson @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Even though this is about the organization of newsgroups, and how they
should be run, this thread is one of the stronger agruments in favor of
moderation that I have seen. There seems to be no commonly agreeable
upon method of halting the discussion.
Patrick Logan wrote:
>
> In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>
> : You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
...
>
> --
> Patrick Logan (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com
> (W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com
> http://www.gemstone.com
>
> "I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>>
>> You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
>Even though this is about the organization of newsgroups, and how they
>should be run, this thread is one of the stronger agruments in favor of
>moderation that I have seen. There seems to be no commonly agreeable
>upon method of halting the discussion.
I guess you feel that no one should be opposing the RFD? Sorry to
upset your world, but not everyone agrees there should be a moderated
group.
Elliott
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! :=***=:
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Patrick Logan <plogan@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>In comp.object Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>:
>: You elided the part where I quoted from the RFD that one-upsmanship will
>: be allowed.
>A moderator that bends the mentioned rules for "one upmanship" would
>be in violation of the rules and would receive more than a little
>wrath from the others.
>
>Also each moderator has stated a reluctance to use these specific
>rules even to the fullest extent expressed in the rules, per se. These
>rules are from other moderated groups, they seem to work, and yet the
>moderators for this RFD have expressed reluctance to employ them to
>any great extent.
What's intended should be exactly what's in the RFD. Also what's
wrong with doing better than the past? Some of the rules from the
past are terrible and should be modified. The framers of the US
Constitution were correct not to just accept the traditional
monarchical ideas on the state. They could have, but they did better.
That is if there is, or should be, a group at all, which still has to
be decided.
Elliott
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! :=***=:
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1 sibling, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Crawley @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <8zPU1.660$zi4.293929060@newsreader.digex.net>,
Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>There's no excuse for dictatorship!
It is my democratic right to vote for a "dictatorship" if I think
this is the best solution.
>: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
>: better than a democracy...
>
>I totally disagree!
Your opinion has been noted. [We'll send the thought police around
later to re-educate you :-)]
Seriously, the problem with USENET news is that there is currently no
technology to allow the readership of a group implement policies to
ensure that the group suit their collective needs. Until such
technology is available, we have to rely on primitive (labor
intensive) mechanisms like human moderation, with all the risks that
this won't work very well.
Meanwhile, I'm happy with a "dictator" moderator, not least because I
see examples where the model works VERY WELL (IMO); e.g. comp.risks.
If the dictator does a bad job, and is unwilling to move aside ... we
can always go back to comp.object and start again.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Reality is a point of view @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
+---- crawley@dstc.edu.au wrote (14 Oct 1998 02:25:10 GMT):
| Seriously, the problem with USENET news is that there is currently no
| technology to allow the readership of a group implement policies to
| ensure that the group suit their collective needs.
+----
That is also a common misconception.
<a href="http://www.cs.umn.edu/Research/GroupLens">
Moderation where it belongs.</a>
--
Gary Johnson gjohnson@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Robert Oliver
1 sibling, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
crawley@dstc.edu.au (Stephen Crawley) wrote:
>In article <8zPU1.660$zi4.293929060@newsreader.digex.net>,
>Ell <ell@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>>There's no excuse for dictatorship!
>
>It is my democratic right to vote for a "dictatorship" if I think
>this is the best solution.
>
>>: When it comes to technology, a benevolent dictatorship often works a lot
>>: better than a democracy...
>>
>>I totally disagree!
>
>Your opinion has been noted. [We'll send the thought police around
>later to re-educate you :-)]
>
>Seriously, the problem with USENET news is that there is currently no
>technology to allow the readership of a group implement policies to
>ensure that the group suit their collective needs. Until such
>technology is available, we have to rely on primitive (labor
>intensive) mechanisms like human moderation, with all the risks that
>this won't work very well.
>
>Meanwhile, I'm happy with a "dictator" moderator, not least because I
>see examples where the model works VERY WELL (IMO); e.g. comp.risks.
>If the dictator does a bad job, and is unwilling to move aside ... we
>can always go back to comp.object and start again.
If only for the fact that they intend on filling vacancies only
through selection by moderators - though there is more - I would
reject the proposal out of hand. I mean, I never thought that I would
hear of people *willingly* accepting that. It boggles my mind that
some people accept this. Both the notion and its acceptance are
terrible are reprehensible, as I see it.
I think that any organization of people should be moving the bar
toward greater freedom and liberation, not away from it. Certainly
you can have moderators regulate discussion even while voting for them
annually, and having votes to fill vacancies (unless the vacancy is
say within 60 days of the annual vote.)
Elliott
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! :=***=:
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Robert Oliver
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michi Henning @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:
> If only for the fact that they intend on filling vacancies only
> through selection by moderators - though there is more - I would
> reject the proposal out of hand. I mean, I never thought that I would
> hear of people *willingly* accepting that. It boggles my mind that
> some people accept this. Both the notion and its acceptance are
> terrible are reprehensible, as I see it.
Why so? Have a look at comp.lang.c++.moderated, to pick one example. That's
a group that is moderated according to the same rules. The group is
extremely high quality, choc-a-block full of useful information, and not at
all stifled. (If I was a moderator, I would probably be less lenient than
the current moderators.) In addition, the signal-to-noise ratio is excellent,
and I can read the group without having to wade through job advertisements,
flames, ads for personal loans or pornographic sites, or thinly-disguised
attempts by students to get someone else do do their homework for them.
I don't care about principles of freedom or democracy in this case. Instead,
I care about having an information source that is useful, informative,
and free of irrelevant material. Moderation achieves that in an effective
way, so I get what I want.
By your argument, magazines, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations
shouldn't have editors either, who, after all, also exercise editorial
control and have influence over content.
The simple reality is that if you don't want a moderated newsgroup, don't
read it. Meanwhile, the rest of us can go and be happy with that group.
Democracy is freedom of choice, among other things.
Michi.
--
Michi Henning +61 7 33654310
DSTC Pty Ltd +61 7 33654311 (fax)
University of Qld 4072 michi@dstc.edu.au
AUSTRALIA http://www.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/michi-henning.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Robert Oliver
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Robert Oliver @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ell wrote:
> I think that any organization of people should be moving the bar
> toward greater freedom and liberation, not away from it.
Greater freedom requires greater responsibility.
comp.object.moderated is being created for two reasons:
1. To provide participants the freedom to use a service (moderation)
provided voluntarily to anyone who wants it.
2. This service (moderation) ensures that participants must conform
to minimal standards of responsibility in their postings.
Anyone who wishes to post below the minimum standard of
responsibility as defined by the moderated group should post to
comp.object.
Should comp.object.moderated come to pass, anyone who subscribes
to both comp.object and comp.object.moderated should get *all*
postings, just as if the moderated group had not formed.
To assert that the formation of a moderated group restricts your
freedom to post is simply dishonest. You are afraid of loosing
your audience, nothing more.
Regards,
Bob Oliver
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michi Henning @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:
> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation. After
> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
> group and to deflect criticism away from them. There is every reason
> still to: VOTE NO!
Hmmm... The RFD sounded like the stock-standard set of rules used by
many moderated groups.
>
> Section 1)
>
[ Lots of objections and comments deleted ]
Personally, I like moderated groups. They make it possible to have
discussions about things that relate to the topic of the group without
having to read through abuse, spam, or job ads (which are spam too, really).
My experience has been that articles are rejected very rarely by moderators,
and I think concerns about censorship or some such are not an issue in
practice.
I'm all for a group where I don't have to delete another ten job ads whenever
I go to read it. And I don't find it all that enlightening to read articles
where people throw the worst kind of abuse at each other...
I certainly will be voting yes for a moderated group. If you don't like
the moderated group, you can still use the unmoderated one. That's freedom
of choice...
Cheers,
Michi.
Copyright 1998 Michi Henning. All rights reserved.
--
Michi Henning +61 7 33654310
DSTC Pty Ltd +61 7 33654311 (fax)
University of Qld 4072 michi@dstc.edu.au
AUSTRALIA http://www.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/michi-henning.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In comp.object Michi Henning <michi@dstc.edu.au> wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ell wrote:
:> I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
:> anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation. After
:> reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
:> moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
:> group and to deflect criticism away from them. There is every reason
:> still to: VOTE NO!
: Hmmm... The RFD sounded like the stock-standard set of rules used by
: many moderated groups.
I'd like to know for sure, but that doesn't really make it any better.
This RFD's judgement rules are subjective and moderation tenure and future
selection are downright dictatorship.
Elliott
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! ALL IDEAS SHOULD BE CRITICIZABLE! :=***=:
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-09 0:00 RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Tim Ottinger
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1998-10-31 0:00 ` Ell
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Tim Ottinger" <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:
I make these comments to point out the fallacies, unjustness and
anti-democratic nature of the motivation behind moderation. After
reading this RFD, I'm even more convinced that the motivation for
moderation is to place discussion control in the hands of a small
group and to deflect criticism away from them. There is every reason
still to: VOTE NO!
Section 1)
>When In Doubt:
>
>An article shall be accepted, especially for short off-topic
>digressions in a thread.
Why? An alleged motivation for moderation is to stop off-topic posts.
This is subjective and allows the moderators to OK anything they
favor.
Bad. Subjective
Section 2)
>d) Questioning of other people's motives and honesty is explicitly
>considered both off-topic and extremely rude, no matter whether the
>contents of the article are otherwise correct or not.
Why, if it can be *substantiated*? That is if there is evidence to
back up such questioning.
>d) Any but the most light-hearted attempts at one-upmanship will be
>disallowed.
Bad. Should no be allowed at. This makes it subjective. Moderators
can allow a stream of what they consider to "light-hearted"
one-upsmanships. These may reflect a bias of the moderators.
>When In Doubt:
>
>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
The contradicts the immediately above. The immediately above should
be dropped period.
>It belongs to the community of people whose work is the
>practice and theory of Object-Orientation,
This is subjective. We have fundamental difference now on what is OO,
and even what is an object.
>When In Doubt:
>An article is rejected. Not a flame shall pass through.
>When In Doubt:
>An article is accepted, general noise level permitting.
?? 2 opposite policies for "When In Doubt"
>2) Moderator Notes
>
>Moderators may add a note to an article only for the reasons and
>according to the policies stated above, to correct incomplete or
>incorrect references, or to recommend changing thread titles when
>topics drift from their original focus.
>Most articles should not have any notes. Those that do should have
>only one, or at the most two. So be judicious.
Terrible! There should be *no* moderator notes. This can too easily
be abused and made source and stream of biased opinions. If a
moderator passes an article and wants to correct something they should
repost.
Section 7)
>7) Moderator Body
>When there is a shortage of moderators, the remaining moderators
>select willing volunteers who are participants in the newsgroup and
>whose posting history shows understanding of and respect for the
>moderation policy.
Horrible! Not only life terms, but moderators then get to select new
moderators. Totally undemocratic, and oligarchic.
So the supposed joke between proposed moderators about inheriting
moderator positions wasn't so much of a joke.
Nothing could be clearer that moderation is about one group taking
control of discussion and shielding its ideology and practice from
criticism.
Elliott Coates
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! :=***=:
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-09 0:00 RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Tim Ottinger
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-31 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
` (5 more replies)
2 siblings, 6 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Bertrand Meyer @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship
has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the
newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with
some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting
on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same forum!)
`comp.object.moderated' is a bad solution to a non-existent problem.
The level of noise and off-topic discussions on comp.object is
quite reasonable. Many of the group discussions are informative and
useful. It provides an excellent forum for discussions of O-O issues.
It's a great opportunity for novices to meet experts. I personally
learned a lot from it over the years, including from postings that
wouldn't have stood a chance under the proposed censorship rules.
For unknown reasons a group of self-appointed guardians of
object morality have decided that they alone know what is acceptable
and what is not. They should be encouraged to create their own
mailing list, but have no right to take over the comp.object name.
(I know, the unmoderated comp.object group would theoretically remain,
but newcomers will naturally assume that the "serious stuff" is on
the newsgroup that has the same name with the added suffix "moderated".)
This is a serious matter (that's why I am taking the time to write
this message). By suppressing the more forward-looking views and
always bowing to the "safe" majority choices even when everyone knew
they were plainly wrong, we software people as a community have
pathetically betrayed our duty to society, as witnessed by the
shameful Year 2000 mess and other looming disasters. We badly need,
for the honor of our profession and the well-being of society,
to let alternative views express themselves freely. Today, because
of the power of hype and marketing and the irresponsibiliy of some
of the very organizations that should support serious technical debate,
there are precious few avenues of expression left for non-majority views
in software technology. comp.object is one of the best.
Do not let anyone take it away from you.
To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O
group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it
but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own
Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name.
To all others: don't let this proposal be passed sneakily
on `news.groups' why you read the interesting stuff on comp.object.
Kill it before it kills you.
--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com
--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
@ 1998-10-11 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Phlip
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Joachim Durchholz @ 1998-10-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Bertrand Meyer wrote:
>
> The censorship
> has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
> newsgroup that no one reads.
The announcement was crossposted to all newsgroups that may be
interrelated with OO. However, as not everybody in these groups is
likely to have an interest in the discussion, it makes sense to trim
down the follow-up groups. It might have been a good idea to include
comp.object itself in the list, but I don't think this was a conscious
attempt at censorship.
Reply to the other points in news.groups and comp.object, to keep the
noise down.
Regards,
Joachim
--
Please don't send unsolicited ads.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
@ 1998-10-11 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Phlip @ 1998-10-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Bertrand Meyer wrote in message <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com>...
>`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>any non-conforming view on object technology.
>Bzzzt<
"The first few lines must 'hook' the readers, and make them 'care' about
the story."
I can't read the rest of this. You could even have started nice before
going sour. Nobody's voting to shut down every other group in USENET,
and the moderators will be forbidden to bounce a post on because of
opinions it contains. Did you have, like, a bad day recently?
-- Phlip at politizen dot com (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
-- And I'm still waiting to see Eiffel driving a Web site... --
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Phlip
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Avner Ben
` (3 more replies)
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 4 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick May @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
> `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> any non-conforming view on object technology.
The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology. The
charter does not allow censorship based on content. This group has
been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
flames, insults, and off-topic material.
Certainly there is the risk that the determination of what
constitutes an "on topic" thread could be used to silence minority
views that are otherwise acceptably expressed. This would require the
collusion of every moderator. In this unlikely event, the 'net
provides a number of mechanisms to expose the problem and to replace
the offending moderators. In practice, the moderated groups that I
read do not have this problem. In fact, the moderators seem to err
towards approving questionable posts rather than being too
restrictive.
As a frequent lurker and occasional poster to comp.object, I
appreciate the effort being volunteered by the proposed moderators and
look forward to the creation of comp.object.moderated.
Regards,
Patrick May
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Avner Ben
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
1998-10-12 0:00 ` David Franklin Reynolds
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Avner Ben @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Patrick May wrote in message ...
>...This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
This sounds like a pretty shaky foundation. The alleged behaviour of one
individual is not a sufficient excuse for making life difficult for the rest
of the people.
Since you do not mention who that peoson is, all I may suggest is that
*YOU* attempt to ignore *HIM* in the future.
Avner.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Avner Ben
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Jay Denebeim @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <6vsva6$db6$1@news.netvision.net.il>,
Avner Ben <avnerben@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> This sounds like a pretty shaky foundation. The alleged behaviour of one
>individual is not a sufficient excuse for making life difficult for the rest
>of the people.
First off, nope, it's perfectly possible for *a* person to destroy a
newsgroup. All you have to do is post a troll, then reply to each and
every flame you get being even nastier, then continue on
geometrically. It's not that tough. I've seen it done too many
times. As big as usenet has gotten the 'killfile the troll' technique
doesn't work anymore.
As far as being difficult goes, not really. A well moderated group is
so fast as to be unnoticable.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-request@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: denebeim@deepthot.ml.org *
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Avner Ben
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` David Franklin Reynolds
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jason Stokes
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Mark Bennison
3 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: David Franklin Reynolds @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Patrick May wrote in message ...
>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>
> The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology. The
>charter does not allow censorship based on content. This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
...
Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
--david
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` David Franklin Reynolds
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1 sibling, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Phlip @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
David Franklin Reynolds wrote:
>
>Patrick May wrote:
>>Bertrand Meyer writes:
>> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
I was right. Nobody else on this thread replied to anything but the
first line. Irony: The first line was by a published author of books
considered seminal!
>> The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology. The
>>charter does not allow censorship based on content. This group has
>>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>...
>Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip
the
>posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear
automagically.
They've tried.
Discussion fora work - much better than verbal discussion for some
topics - because after someone posts a good idea or a bad one, everyone
else elaborates on it. One post can set off a cascade of replies
containing valid and useful data. A "thread" is really a "tree".
Trolling works by exploiting this cascade effect to fill a group up with
crap. Kill-files work against unsuccessful trolls, but even if any
"critical mass" of forum subscribers kill-file a troll the group still
fills up with a cascade of useless crap. This "pollutes" a forum by
making lurkers avoid reading good posts - you never know which ones they
could be in a trolled thread.
comp.lang.c++ was moderated to provide respite endless holy wars,
repeated neophyte questions and off-topic info about hardware, libraries
and platforms. comp.object is about philosophy - the P in Ph.D. It
already does not have the problems comp.lang.c++ did. But it has
problems.
-- Phlip at politizen dot com (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
-- "These days I find myself worrying about the
International Conspiracy Against Me.
"How can I _increase_ it??" - Phlip --
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1 sibling, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Reality is a point of view @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
+---- new_email@see.web.page wrote (12 Oct 1998 07:18:06 PDT):
| comp.lang.c++ was moderated to provide respite endless holy wars,
| repeated neophyte questions and off-topic info about hardware, libraries
| and platforms. comp.object is about philosophy - the P in Ph.D. It
| already does not have the problems comp.lang.c++ did. But it has
| problems.
+----
No, I believe even the volume of comp.lang.c++ wasn't enough to
encourage moderation. It was, as in this case, one person
successfully throwing tomatoes at the status quo.
Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.
--
Gary Johnson gjohnson@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Robert C. Martin @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Reality is a point of view wrote in message <6vtft0$smm$1@supernews.com>...
> +---- new_email@see.web.page wrote (12 Oct 1998 07:18:06 PDT):
> | comp.lang.c++ was moderated to provide respite endless holy wars,
> | repeated neophyte questions and off-topic info about hardware, libraries
> | and platforms. comp.object is about philosophy - the P in Ph.D. It
> | already does not have the problems comp.lang.c++ did. But it has
> | problems.
> +----
>
>No, I believe even the volume of comp.lang.c++ wasn't enough to
>encourage moderation. It was, as in this case, one person
>successfully throwing tomatoes at the status quo.
>
>Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
>certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
>the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.
I still haven't gotten Meyer's article on my news server, so all I've seen
so far is the tag line. And I saw that well after I posted my support of
Patrick Doyle.
Robert C. Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor | rmartin@oma.com | Object Oriented Design
14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 | C++
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-15 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Loryn Jenkins @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
> Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
> certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
> the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.
What's the joke? Hasn't anyone noticed Patrick Doyle posting in c.l.e as
well as c.o?
Loryn Jenkins
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
@ 1998-10-15 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Doyle @ 1998-10-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <362269AC.B3AE3D3F@s054.aone.net.au>,
Loryn Jenkins <loryn@acm.org> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, I keep seeing conflicting sweeping statements by
>> certain fans of c.o.m., though the 'we need Eiffel presence on
>> the Moderation team' was, considering the timing, too funny.
>
>What's the joke?
Unless I'm mistaken, the irony is that Robert's explicit support
of an Eiffel presence on the mod panel coincided with Eiffel's
creator speaking so openly against the mod effort.
-PD
--
--
Patrick Doyle
doylep@ecf.toronto.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Loryn Jenkins @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
> Trolling works by exploiting this cascade effect to fill a group up with
> crap. Kill-files work against unsuccessful trolls, but even if any
> "critical mass" of forum subscribers kill-file a troll the group still
> fills up with a cascade of useless crap. This "pollutes" a forum by
> making lurkers avoid reading good posts - you never know which ones they
> could be in a trolled thread.
Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives to:
to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?
Loryn Jenkins
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Tim Ottinger @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
The problem tends to be that perfectly interesting and valid discussions
break out in the midst of a flame war, and are in the tree of the
killed thread.
I tried it and missed out on a lot. Now, it would work if everyone
would create a new posting (without references to the troll thread)
when they change topics, but they often don't.
I hate killfiles because I miss the authors' more lucid postings.
I use them because I finally decided it was worth missing the good
stuff to miss the bad stuff, too, and I'm not sure that is true.
Moderation would work better.
I hate killthreads because I miss any worthwhile discussions which
rise pheonix-like from the midst of the flames. Moderation would
work better.
We need really intelligent filters that can see the difference
between an interesting bit and a bunch of noise. So we elected
about six of them.
Loryn Jenkins wrote:
>
> Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives to:
> to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Phlip @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Loryn Jenkins wrote:
>> Trolling works by exploiting this cascade effect to fill a group up with
>> crap. Kill-files work against unsuccessful trolls, but even if any
>> "critical mass" of forum subscribers kill-file a troll the group still
>> fills up with a cascade of useless crap. This "pollutes" a forum by
>> making lurkers avoid reading good posts - you never know which ones they
>> could be in a trolled thread.
>
>Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives to:
>to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?
Messenger, Outlook, Gravity, ns; they all have no feature called "Add all
the posts that lurkers were going to write to add value to the thread but
did not because a Troll destroyed it."
_That_ is the feature that the comp.object.moderated push tries to provide.
-- Phlip at politizen dot com (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Joachim Durchholz @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Loryn Jenkins wrote:
>
> Haven't you ever explored the functionality netscape messenger gives
> to: to "ignore thread", at any point in the thread tree?
When I do that I kill the entire tree, which is usually not what I want.
(No I'm not fully satisfied, but I'm neither with any alternative that I
checked.)
Regards,
Joachim
--
Please don't send unsolicited ads.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` David Franklin Reynolds
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1999-07-29 0:00 ` David Mescher
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Doyle @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
>posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining? Do you
have a solid reason to actively block the new group? If you think
it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.
-PD
--
--
Patrick Doyle
doylep@ecf.toronto.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
@ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` David Mescher
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff J. Wilson
1999-07-29 0:00 ` J Durbin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: David Mescher @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Patrick Doyle wrote:
> In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
> David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
> >posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
> If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining? Do you
> have a solid reason to actively block the new group? If you think
> it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.
>
> -PD
If a group, in the opinion of the voter, is unncessary, 'no' is a
perfectly
valid vote. (See John Stanley's FAQ on news.groups, "Why people vote
NO")
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1999-07-29 0:00 ` David Mescher
@ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff J. Wilson
1999-07-29 0:00 ` J Durbin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Jeff J. Wilson @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
David Mescher wrote:
>
> Patrick Doyle wrote:
> > In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
> > David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
> > >posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
> > If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining? Do you
> > have a solid reason to actively block the new group? If you think
> > it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.
> >
> > -PD
> If a group, in the opinion of the voter, is unncessary, 'no' is a
> perfectly valid vote. (See John Stanley's FAQ on news.groups, "Why people vote
> NO")
It is "perfectly valid" to vote NO for any reason that pops into your
head, whether or not it appears in John's FAQ. However, that doesn't
make it wrong to ask someone else not to vote NO for a particular
reason or even to call it a "bit harsh."
--
Jeff J. Wilson [ jeff.wilson@unisys.com ]
...speaking only for myself
Vanguard of the 13er generation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1999-07-29 0:00 ` David Mescher
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff J. Wilson
@ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` J Durbin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: J Durbin @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
David Mescher <dmescher@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>Patrick Doyle wrote:
>> In article <o4jU1.27802$K02.16718724@news.teleport.com>,
>> David Franklin Reynolds <daver@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Moderate a group because of one person? I'll vote NO. Either just skip the
>> >posts, or learn how to use a filter to make them disappear automagically.
>> If you don't mind my asking, have you considered abstaining? Do you
>> have a solid reason to actively block the new group? If you think
>> it's just unnecessary, I think a "no" vote is a bit harsh.
>>
>> -PD
>If a group, in the opinion of the voter, is unncessary, 'no' is a
>perfectly
>valid vote. (See John Stanley's FAQ on news.groups, "Why people vote
>NO")
Just out of curiousity, why are you following up now to an article
that was posted in mid-October 1998?
jd
--
jason durbin
stop reading here <---
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Avner Ben
1998-10-12 0:00 ` David Franklin Reynolds
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jason Stokes
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Mark Bennison
3 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Jason Stokes @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <w1rk926jkch.fsf@falcon>, Patrick May <mayp@falcon> wrote:
>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>
> The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology. The
>charter does not allow censorship based on content. This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
A single prolific poster can be killfiled quite easily. Any self
respecting news reader software will have a feature to score and reject
articles from particular people automatically.
If it was more than one, it might be a problem. But I doubt it has
reached a 'tradgedy of the commons' situation just yet.
--
Jason Stokes: jstok@bluedog.apana.org.au
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jason Stokes
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Robert C. Martin @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jason Stokes wrote in message
<6vsuhb$grp$1@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>In article <w1rk926jkch.fsf@falcon>, Patrick May <mayp@falcon> wrote:
>>
>> The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology. The
>>charter does not allow censorship based on content. This group has
>>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>
>A single prolific poster can be killfiled quite easily. Any self
>respecting news reader software will have a feature to score and reject
>articles from particular people automatically.
The problem goes far beyond one person. Whether due to one person or to
many, the end result is that comp.object has turned into a place dominated
by noise, name calling, off topic philosophical discussions, and personal
insults. The long term exposure of many of the regular posters to this
barrage of insults and denegrations has let to some posters becoming trigger
happy, blasting off a premptive strike at the first indication of trouble.
The noisy off-topic philosophical arguments have also attracted certain
posters who like to continue these off topic threads. The result has been
chaos, and a marked attenuation of real content from the group.
The informal vote to moderate was overwhelmingly in favor. (By well over a
factor of ten). This, I think, indicates that the noise level has gotten to
the point where moderators must intervene and put the discussions back on a
technical foundation rather than a personal one.
Robert C. Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor | rmartin@oma.com | Object Oriented Design
14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 | C++
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jason Stokes
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Mark Bennison
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
` (2 more replies)
3 siblings, 3 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Mark Bennison @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
mayp@falcon (Patrick May) thought long and hard and wrote:
>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>
> The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology. The
>charter does not allow censorship based on content. This group has
>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>
<snip>
I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated? Surely the old group
comp.object will still exist so I don't see how this can be construed
as censorship since a forum for posting 'non-conforming' views still
exists.
Just my UKP0.02.
Mark.
>Regards,
>
>Patrick May
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Mark Bennison
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
` (2 more replies)
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
2 siblings, 3 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Ell @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
mark.bennison@gecm.com (Mark Bennison) wrote:
>mayp@falcon (Patrick May) thought long and hard and wrote:
>
>>In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:
>> > `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>> > any non-conforming view on object technology.
>>
>> The creation of comp.object.moderated is an attempt to maintain a
>>minimum level of civility in the discussion of OO technology. The
>>charter does not allow censorship based on content. This group has
>>been requested solely due to the pollution of comp.object by a single
>>prolific poster who makes some interesting points but wraps them in
>>flames, insults, and off-topic material.
>>
><snip>
>
>I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
>it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
>the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated? Surely the old group
>comp.object will still exist so I don't see how this can be construed
>as censorship since a forum for posting 'non-conforming' views still
>exists.
>
>Just my UKP0.02.
The point is the corralling of precious Usenet resources - mainly
bandwidth on Usenet servers - to promote the interests of a single
group and to undemocratically shield that group from criticism.
There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
make it worthy of such designation.
Elliott
>
>Mark.
>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Patrick May
--
:=***=: VOTE NO TO MODERATION! :=***=:
CRAFTISM SHOULD NOT USE USENET RESOURCES TO AVOID CRITICISM!
MODERATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME TERMS!
:=***=: Objective * Pre-code Modelling * Holistic :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
Study Phony Crafite OO vs. Genuine OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell
Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Boris Schaefer
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
2 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Logan @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In comp.object Ell <ell@access.digex.net> wrote:
: The point is the corralling of precious Usenet resources - mainly
: bandwidth on Usenet servers - to promote the interests of a single
: group and to undemocratically shield that group from criticism.
: There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
: the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
: make it worthy of such designation.
Elliott, I have more than once requested two pieces of information
from you to help with these concerns... so far I have not seen a
reply.
(1) The moderators are bound by the RFD. What is specifically wrong
about the RFD? How could it be improved?
(2) Since you feel I am one of the moderators who will be promoting
interests you are opposed to, I have offered to help find a way to
resign and be replaced by you. Are you willing? You will then have
as much "power" (ha!) as you feel I would as moderator.
Are you willing?
--
Patrick Logan (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com
(W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com
http://www.gemstone.com
"I am not a Church numeral; I am a free variable!"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Reality is a point of view @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
+---- plogan@user1.teleport.com wrote (Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:04:55 GMT):
| (1) The moderators are bound by the RFD. What is specifically wrong
| about the RFD? How could it be improved?
+----
That is a common misunderstanding of RFD's and Charters.
The Moderators are not bound by the RFD or Charter, though some
may attepmt to hold them to it in public (which is usually good
enough).
--
Gary Johnson gjohnson@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Gerhard Menzl @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Patrick Logan wrote:
> Elliott, [...]
>
> (2) Since you feel I am one of the moderators who will be promoting
> interests you are opposed to, I have offered to help find a way to
> resign and be replaced by you. Are you willing? You will then have
> as much "power" (ha!) as you feel I would as moderator.
But certainly not without election? In that case, I vote NO for Elliott Coates
as a moderator because
1. I do not trust his impartiality.
2. Electing him would be tantamount to electing a parliamentary representative
who is against parliament.
Gerhard Menzl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Boris Schaefer
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Boris Schaefer @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
ell@access.digex.net (Ell) writes:
| There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
| the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
| make it worthy of such designation.
Nothing, except good namespace, makes a group "worthy" of a name.
comp.object.moderated is good namespace.
--
Boris Schaefer -- sbo@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
Unnamed Law:
If it happens, it must be possible.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Boris Schaefer
@ 1998-10-16 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Doyle @ 1998-10-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <3626743b.1281352@news.erols.com>, Ell <ell@access.digex.net> wrote:
>
>The point is the corralling of precious Usenet resources - mainly
>bandwidth on Usenet servers - to promote the interests of a single
>group and to undemocratically shield that group from criticism.
How many "groups" do you need to form a new newsgroup? Why isn't
one sufficient, if it's large enough?
And, if it's an attempt to shield people from criticism, it's going
to be woefully inadequate. We're not allowed to reject posts
on the basis of content, so we won't be able to prevent criticism
from being posted.
>There is also the aspect that it becomes a Usenet "comp." group and
>the above narrow motivation of the proposed moderated group does not
>make it worthy of such designation.
No, of course it doesn't. That's because that's not the reason the
group is being formed. Do you have any evidence that you've read
the RFD?
-PD
--
--
Patrick Doyle
doylep@ecf.toronto.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Mark Bennison
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
@ 1998-10-13 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Robert C. Martin @ 1998-10-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mark Bennison wrote in message <36234afd.80326813@news.geccs.gecm.com>...
>I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
>it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
>the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated? Surely the old group
>comp.object will still exist so I don't see how this can be construed
>as censorship since a forum for posting 'non-conforming' views still
>exists.
Yes, that is correct. comp.object will remain.
Robert C. Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor | rmartin@oma.com | Object Oriented Design
14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 | C++
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Mark Bennison
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
@ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Jay Denebeim @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <36234afd.80326813@news.geccs.gecm.com>,
Mark Bennison <mark.bennison@gecm.com> wrote:
>I've been reading this thread in comp.lang.ada and not all posts make
>it there so I may have missed something but... isn't the proposal for
>the creation of a /new/ group that is moderated?
Um, there isn't a proposal. The group has existed for the better part
of a year.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-request@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: denebeim@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
@ 1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
[not found] ` <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
5 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Tim Ottinger @ 1998-10-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Bertrand Meyer wrote:
>
> `comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
> any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship
> has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
> newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the
> newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with
> some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting
> on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same forum!)
Dr. Meyer:
This is the standard, well-published Usenet standard. As a courtesy
to the newsgroups who received the (2nd) RfD, followups are posted to
news.groups, for exactly the reason that it's not used for anything
else.
It is not a malicious invention of the group who propose and
support comp.object.moderated. It is required, in fact, by the
usenet mentors in their documents on how to create a newsgroup.
As such, it was considered common knowledge among netizens, but
here we see that maybe the procedure is not so well-known.
I suggest that you and all others who are concerned about this
practice take a look at the FAQs at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/news/news.groups.html
particularly:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
Where there are links to find the information about how to
format and post newsgroup RFDs.
There are rules. By adhering to these rules, we are not
performing any dispicable personal acts. You are free to
dislike the rules, and to post against them. But you should
attribute the rules to the usenet ruling bodies for whatever
purposes they have, not to the adherents of the rules who
are just trying to get a newsgroup created.
Please also consider:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/mod/manifesto/
> To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O
> group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it
> but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own
> Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name.
Consider the FAQ on newsgroup names. We're within the rules of
the Usenet ruling body.
Creating a newsgroup is a bureaucratic process with reasonable
rules, and not an effort by some upstart to usurp whatever
standards of courtesy you feel should instead apply.
I respect your work. I'm sorry you weren't aware of the
standard process for moderation, and that you've misinterpreted
it to be a vicious and personal and sneak operation.
I still respect your work.
tim
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>]
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
[not found] ` <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Kevin Szabo
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Juergen Schlegelmilch
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Phlip
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Szabo @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>,
Bob Hutchison <hutch@RedRock.com> wrote:
>Pardon me for saying this, but every response to Meyer's article that
>has reached my news service is off topic.
>
>Is anyone actually going to respond to what he said?
The article never reached my server, but lots of follow ups did. Could
it have been a forgery that was cancelled by the perpetrator? The
snippets of the original posting that I have seen did not seem like the
writings of a well-respected industry leader ... they were more like
the rantings of an adolescent. I found the charter for
comp.object.moderated was very well written and I applaud the attempt
to bring a noise-free forum for object-oriented discussions back to
life.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Kevin Szabo
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Juergen Schlegelmilch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Juergen Schlegelmilch @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 14 Oct 1998 09:46:31 GMT, Kevin Szabo <kszabo@nortel.ca> wrote:
>The article never reached my server, but lots of follow ups did. Could
>it have been a forgery that was cancelled by the perpetrator?
I checked with dejanews, and the original article is _not_ at
dejanews, so I cannot check its message ID. From the replies
(References: header as well as message bodies) I conclude that
it had message ID <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com> --- which
Bertrand Meyer did indeed cancel (message ID <6vr2gt$mcs$1@news.rain.org>).
Whether it was a forgery, or Dr. Meyer realized that it may not be up
to his usual standards, cannot be determined from dejanews. Personally,
I believe that message was forged by a troll.
Regards,
J�rgen
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
Juergen Schlegelmilch http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~schlegel
Database Research Group mailto:schlegel@Informatik.Uni-Rostock.de
University of Rostock, Computer Science Department, 18051 Rostock, Germany
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
[not found] ` <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Kevin Szabo
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Boris Schaefer
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Phlip @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Bob Hutchison wrote:
>Pardon me for saying this, but every response to Meyer's article that
>has reached my news service is off topic.
The RFD is on-topic because all the RFCs told Tim Ottinger to post it to
a "set of related groups, and news.groups". FORTRAN - no. Haskell - no.
microsoft.public.* - no. Ada - yes.
What group are you reading?
>Is anyone actually going to respond to what he said?
No. Like I pointed out in the first reply, his (or his spoofer's)
opening sentence was so caustic almost nobody ever read further.
Further, his (or his spoofer's) opening sentence reminded us of the kind
of rhetoric from a particular poster that started the moderation process
in the first place. Irony, huh?
The entire alleged Bertrand Meyer post appears below my signature, to
submit to server path and handwriting analysis. Notice the message ID is
on the 'eiffel.com' server - a spoofer would need to tap into that
server, exploit a rebounder on it, briefly name their own server that
(and get the 'net to accept it), sneak into the ISC building, or work
there.
In summary, if one of our industry leaders wrote it, he has been
criticized from all sides for it. It erodes everyones respect for him.
I want to repeat I find the work deeply offensive, and I hope whoever
wrote it wises up. And nobody should forget that when the moderated
newsgroup starts up, this post would have passed moderation and been
accepted.
-- Phlip at politizen dot com (address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
Path:
news!global-news-master!newsfeed.concentric.net!newshub.northeast.verio.
net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.rain.org!not-for-mail
From: Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>
Newsgroups:
news.groups,comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smallta
lk,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:47:19 -0700
Organization: Interactive Software Engineering
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com>
References: <907918039.22235@isc.org>
Reply-To: Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: outback.eiffel.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news comp.lang.ada:77012 comp.lang.smalltalk:75209
comp.lang.c++:372631 comp.lang.eiffel:33161 comp.object:93830
news.groups:11075
`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
any non-conforming view on object technology. (The censorship
has already begun with the redirection of replies to a single
newsgroup that no one reads. Please refuse this and reply to the
newsgroups where the original was posted, as I am doing -- with
some difficulty -- here. I can't believe the arrogance of posting
on a newsgroup and trying to bar others from replying on the same
forum!)
`comp.object.moderated' is a bad solution to a non-existent problem.
The level of noise and off-topic discussions on comp.object is
quite reasonable. Many of the group discussions are informative and
useful. It provides an excellent forum for discussions of O-O issues.
It's a great opportunity for novices to meet experts. I personally
learned a lot from it over the years, including from postings that
wouldn't have stood a chance under the proposed censorship rules.
For unknown reasons a group of self-appointed guardians of
object morality have decided that they alone know what is acceptable
and what is not. They should be encouraged to create their own
mailing list, but have no right to take over the comp.object name.
(I know, the unmoderated comp.object group would theoretically remain,
but newcomers will naturally assume that the "serious stuff" is on
the newsgroup that has the same name with the added suffix "moderated".)
This is a serious matter (that's why I am taking the time to write
this message). By suppressing the more forward-looking views and
always bowing to the "safe" majority choices even when everyone knew
they were plainly wrong, we software people as a community have
pathetically betrayed our duty to society, as witnessed by the
shameful Year 2000 mess and other looming disasters. We badly need,
for the honor of our profession and the well-being of society,
to let alternative views express themselves freely. Today, because
of the power of hype and marketing and the irresponsibiliy of some
of the very organizations that should support serious technical debate,
there are precious few avenues of expression left for non-majority views
in software technology. comp.object is one of the best.
Do not let anyone take it away from you.
To the authors of this proposal: if you really want to have an O-O
group tailored to your own view, you are entitled to creating it
but you are NOT entitled to the name comp.object. Start your own
Web-archived mailing list, or a newsgroup with a less portentous name.
To all others: don't let this proposal be passed sneakily
on `news.groups' why you read the interesting stuff on comp.object.
Kill it before it kills you.
--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com
--
Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering
ISE Building, 2nd Floor, 270 Storke Road Goleta, CA 93117 USA
805-685-1006, Fax 805-685-6869,
<Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>, http://eiffel.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Phlip
@ 1998-10-14 0:00 ` Boris Schaefer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Boris Schaefer @ 1998-10-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Phlip" <new_email@see.web.page> writes:
| The entire alleged Bertrand Meyer post appears below my signature, to
| submit to server path and handwriting analysis. Notice the message ID is
| on the 'eiffel.com' server - a spoofer would need to tap into that
| server, exploit a rebounder on it, briefly name their own server that
| (and get the 'net to accept it), sneak into the ISC building, or work
| there.
Ummm, no. The Message-Id can easily be forged.
--
Boris Schaefer -- sbo@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
[not found] ` <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>
@ 1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
5 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Jay Denebeim @ 1999-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <36210B47.6A5FE581@eiffel.com>,
Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> wrote:
>`comp.object.moderated' is a blatant attempt at censoring
>any non-conforming view on object technology.
*yawn* Nobody is holding a gun to your head, you're more than welcome
to post on the old newsgroup.
(obviously or else they would probably have pulled the trigger)
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-request@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: denebeim@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-07-29 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1998-08-27 0:00 RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Tim Ottinger
[not found] ` <H5oH1.634$495.190709860@newsreader.digex.net>
[not found] ` <35ee6ccb.0@news2.ibm.net>
1998-09-06 0:00 ` Ell
1998-09-07 0:00 ` Rolf F. Katzenberger
1998-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Martin
1998-09-08 0:00 ` Rolf F. Katzenberger
1998-09-07 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
1998-09-08 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
1998-09-17 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
1998-10-28 0:00 ` CFV: " David Bostwick
1998-11-11 0:00 ` 2nd " David Bostwick
1998-11-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1998-11-19 0:00 ` RESULT: comp.object.moderated moderated passes 324:24 David Bostwick
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1998-10-09 0:00 RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated Tim Ottinger
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` James Robertson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Sven Sass
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Robert Oliver
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Michi Henning
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-31 0:00 ` Ell
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Bertrand Meyer
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Patrick May
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Avner Ben
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
1998-10-12 0:00 ` David Franklin Reynolds
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-15 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Loryn Jenkins
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Joachim Durchholz
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1999-07-29 0:00 ` David Mescher
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jeff J. Wilson
1999-07-29 0:00 ` J Durbin
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Jason Stokes
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Mark Bennison
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ell
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Patrick Logan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Reality is a point of view
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Boris Schaefer
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Patrick Doyle
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Robert C. Martin
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tim Ottinger
[not found] ` <363314e1.131092310@enews.newsguy.com>
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Kevin Szabo
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Juergen Schlegelmilch
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Phlip
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Boris Schaefer
1999-07-29 0:00 ` Jay Denebeim
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox