From:	jesse AT lenny DOT dseg DOT ti DOT com (Jesse Bennett)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: c.o.m.djgpp retro-moderated?
Date:	5 Mar 1997 21:32:07 GMT
Organization:	Texas Instruments
Lines:	25
Message-ID:	<5fkoon$63j$1@superb.csc.ti.com>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970305164326 DOT 18300B-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	jbennett AT ti DOT com (Jesse Bennett)
NNTP-Posting-Host:	lenny.dseg.ti.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970305164326 DOT 18300B-100000 AT is>,
	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:

> The only practical way to
> make the noise lower is to have designated people on the news group who
> would point out such cases and ask the involved to kindly take their
> discission off the group.  This requires that the majority of the
> participants will accept such judgement and abide by it.

I consider this a reasonable and acceptable approach to the problem.
It assumes that the group participants are, on the whole, reasonable
people.  When this assumption can no longer be made the only recourse
(IMHO) is full moderation.

It also relies on a concensus of what is considered on-topic.  This is
where things become difficult.  There seems to be two different
schools of thought on this.  One is that only topics specific to the
use of djgpp are appropriate.  The other is that topics that are
related in a general sense to djgpp programming are appropriate.  The
latter category is (intentionally) vague and needs to be explored
further.  It also has some gray areas whereas the djgpp specific
approach is much more black and white.

Best Regards,
Jesse

- Raw text -