Re: RFD: comp.object.moderated moderated

[Ell <ell@access2.digex.net>]

In comp.object Rolf F. Katzenberger <rfkat@ibm.net> wrote:

: <ell@access5.digex.net> wrote:
:>
:> In comp.object Tim Ottinger <ottinger@oma.com> wrote:
:> 
:> >                      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.

:> [Overall] The signal-to-noise ratio on comp.object seems very good.

Also Otttinger says above:
:> >and in some cases fear of reprisal.

The implication of physical threats is not absent from this.  And I think
its purpose is to bogusly establish some nebulous possible physical
threat in people's minds.  I have seen nothing of the sort.

: Personally, I find there are too much name calling, aggressive off
: topic postings and trolls here. The percentage varies over time, but
: I'd definitely prefer an additional group for the joy of exclusively
: debating OO topics. The RfD does not propose to replace comp.object
: but to create an additional comp.object.moderated.

My problem is that Usenet and other common resources are being used to
blunt criticism of an ideological position.  Kill files work wonders for
eliminating real noise, but nothing can recover the suppression of the
expression of significant, on-topic comments.

Ottinger in the RFD wrote:
:> >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.

: ... Any kind of harassments is annoying, and I'd highly welcome an
: additional newsgroup where I would not have to face them.

But to me the moderators and others opposition to the use of labels not
pertaining to federal civil rights categories is improper suppression of
freedom expression.  While I sympathize with your desire, the baby is
being thrown out with the bath water.

I have concretely and very specifically demonstrated how the labels they
oppose - craftitism craftite, pragmatism, pragmatists, empircicism,
empiricist - are thoroughly related to objects and the other issues of
software engineering.  These get to issues like epistemology - theories of
knowledge (how we gain knowledge) which Meyer mentions in OOSC, Booch
mentions in OOA&D, and RCM recently raised directly in reference to
Meyer's OOSC.  Epistemology is critically related to every aspect of OO
and software engineering.  Even very basic and fundamental questions of
like what is an object, and how should developers relate to users and
analysis are essential and key issues that epistemology and labels used
within it have a vital bearing upon.

I see the suppression of those labels as a clear attempt to blunt
criticism of one viewpoint within OO and software engineering.  They are
are attempting to stomp on freedom of expression *within* a the OO
and related software engineering areas.

:> Next, in no way should labelling people and positions be considered
:> threatening, or spam.  That is a legitimate and appropriate aspect of
:> discussion and debate. 

: The RfD list the contents that are regarded as flames, spam and
: nonsense. It does not mention labelling at all, so all kinds of
: labelling that are not flames, spam or nonsense will be ok.

Given that nearly all proposed moderators opposed such labels in
discussion, I see no basis for thinking that they won't act ideas.

:> >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>
 
:> At least 5 of these 6 hold the same overall software engineering,
:> object-oriented, and philosophical ideas. They will be biased toward
:> supporting and protecting a specific conservative, pragmatic, empiricist
:> software engineering viewpoint and opposing its opposite. 

: It does not matter what OO theories these people, including me,
: support in their postings. It is common for most Usenet moderated
: newsgroups that moderators as moderators do not comment on articles.
: In fact, the 6 people listed above have argued against arbitrary
: notes, as you did.

But their real power is to post or not post.  I have no reason not to
think that they will not post articles because they use the above labels.
Also it must be considered that the terms will probably occur in
posts in discussions where their own positions are being challenged.  In
such an environment, given their stance against the labels, I really think
that the mere presence of labels will cause them to reject it.  *Even as
a group in majority*.

: The current RfD acknowledges your earlier critique with respect to
: moderator notes and restricts the only allowed OO content
: of such notes to the completion of fragmentary or incorrect book/article
: references.

I really don't understand why they shouldn't just post a supposed
corrections like everyone else must.  There is often much more to
purported correction issues than simple correction. 

: Besides that, the only allowed content of such notes are
: references to the moderation policy itself. Period.

Fine.  And of course they hold the power to post or not post.
Nevertheless...

:> I urge that the creation of comp.object.moderated be opposed, as it's
:> formation is more motivated by the above viewpoint avoiding intellectual
:> criticism more than for any other reason. 
:>
:> Especially when one considers that the present comp.object group has low
:> off-topic, and spam messages, while at the same time it has a high degree
:> of informative, robust, vigorous, and useful debate, discussion, and
:> content. 

Elliott
-- 
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                 Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
         "The domain object model is the foundation of OOD."
 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.