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: 4 Mar 1997 17:07:42 GMT Organization: Texas Instruments Lines: 74 Message-ID: <5fhksu$jc8$1@superb.csc.ti.com> References: Reply-To: jbennett AT ti DOT com (Jesse Bennett) NNTP-Posting-Host: lenny.dseg.ti.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp In article , Michael Phelps writes: > On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, DJ Delorie wrote: > > [...] > >> Except that the group of people who are discussing, say, gcc >> optimizations don't read the djgpp newsgroup. They read the gnu.gcc.* >> newsgroups. If a djgpp reader changes interest, they should switch >> newsgroups. If people did the right thing, they'd set the Followup >> field to point to the appropriate cross-posted newsgroup, so that the >> thread migrated to the right place. > > [...] > >> As for your examples, the right thing to do is reply with a post that >> references the original, cross-posts to c.l.c, and sets the follow up >> there also. Thus, follow-ups to your post will go to the right place. > > How do these cross-posting and cross-referring of newsgroups affect those > who are on the DJGPP mailing list, and _not_ the newsgroup? If the > proposed idea makes it more difficult for people on the mailing list to > get answers, then I do not favor moderation. On the other hand, if it > does not significantly impact those users, then I remain neutral, as I > actually enjoy some of the tidbits of information that I come across while > lurking on the mailing list. Since the examples cited, discussion of gcc optimizations and C language programming methods, are deemed off-topic (they do not relate specifically to djgpp) they would be moved to other forums which are not gatewayed to the mailing list. This seems to be a double-edged sword. It will reduce the email traffic but list subscribers who are interested in these (or similar) topics will be excluded from the discussions altogether. Newsgroup readers would have to follow all of the groups where these discussions migrate. Those here who are familiar with c.l.c. will probably not relish the thought of sifting through the flames there. It's not the place to ask a newbie question. Another approach might be to follow the precendent set by c.l.c. where a companion moderated newsgroup was formed, c.l.c.moderated. IOW, create a new moderated djgpp newsgroup for those who want to discuss only djgpp specific issues without the OS, gcc, and C language side discussions. I feel obligated to reiterate my concerns about the R-M approach that has been proposed. This seems a very slippery slope, allowing postings to be anonymously canceled with no accountability. There are some technical issues here as well. What is to stop a disgruntled individual from canceling legitimate posts as well (or worse, running a CancelBot which targets his "enemies")? It really is very difficult to have the best of both worlds - unrestrained discussions with an assurance they will remain on-topic. Independently of any moderation disscussions I think it is worthwhile to review the group charter periodically. What should be considered on-topic for the group? For example, none of the following are djgpp specific - should the group charter ban these discussions? * Discussions about gcc in general (language extensions, optimizations, assembly language programming, etc.). * Discussions about C programming methods. Tips, tricks, etc. * Discussions about porting code using gcc but not djgpp specifically. For example, I might be interested in porting an application using Linux. Since the code should compile with little or no modification under djgpp it seems likely that there might be some interest in the djgpp community. * etc. Best Regards, Jesse