In article 15179@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
>matt@dogbert.berkeley.edu (Matthew Austern) writes:
>
>>       TENTATIVE MODERATION POLICY
>> ...
>
>My views on moderation policy are still fairly fluid.
>I'd prefer to err on the side of accepting some inappropriate posts
>rather than on the side of rejecting some appropriate ones.

I agree with Fergus. If a question is not clearly off-topic ("How do I
get coffee stains out of my C++ T-Shirt?") it should be accepted. A
current thread seems to be about "academic prosititution", and that would be
another example of off-topic posts -- I didn't see any slightest relevance
to the C++ language definition.


>>"How do I read from the joystick port?" Not germane to comp.std.c++,
>>or, for that matter, to comp.lang.c++.  Posts like that will be
>>rejected.
>
>Yes.  However, discussion about whether certain facilities (even
>joystick port access, although that is pushing it) have been or should
>be standardised, or why they were not standardised, would be germane
>IMHO.  So "Why didn't ANSI/ISO standardize joystick port access?"
>would be a legitimate (though fairly silly) question for comp.std.c++
>in my book.

I agree.

BTW, although I volunteered to help moderate, I don't view many posts in
this newsgroup as being off-topic. Thus it doesn't strike me as vital
for this group to be moderated.
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com