In article <3m7c34$5p7@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
           mcorcora@ix.netcom.com "Marian Corcoran" writes:

[snip]
> "Evolutionary" Charter(Informal) for comp.std.c++
[snip]
> ...things would be okay, as long as discussed in an appropriate manner.
> (no bashing, no flaming).  ...
[snip]

 Shouldn't that read no FLEMING? :-)

--
* Andy Sawyer ** e-mail:andys@thone.demon.co.uk ** Compu$erve:100432,1713 **
 The opinions expressed above are my own, but you are granted the right to
 use and freely distribute them. I accept no responsibility for any injury,
 harm or damage arising from their use.                --   The Management.

I have worked through the following in an attempt to do what is best for
the growth of C++ with the USENET groups as a medium.  I would value any
suggestions you might have.

Motivation for this exploration
  When I see a group and it seems too many people are going in one
direction, I think it is a good idea to examine the other side.  If
everyone were against moderation, I would probably be advocating looking
at moderation, simply to try to balance things out.  Matt Austen
(matt@...) has asked me to come up with a charter for comp.std.c++ which
might be more what I was considering (He invited everyone to do this).
Some one else thinks things could be a little more flexible.

"Evolutionary" Charter(Informal) for comp.std.c++
What I was thinking of, informally, was something that comp.std.c++
would be that the main emphasis would be standards stuff, but other
things would be okay, as long as discussed in an appropriate manner.
(no bashing, no flaming).  Comp.std.c++ has sort of evolved according to
the needs of the group.  It's healthy for organizations and groups to be
able to evolve.  (C++ has succeeded precisely because it has been able
to evolve and integrate new technologies--the latest is STL)
      If you look at comp.std.c++ now it is mostly standards with
language issues that are generally with a slightly different tone than
the overburdened comp.lang.c++.  (Some people don't have time to read
comp.lang.c++).
   From what I see from the responses on this, the major objection to
comp.std.c++ is a particular person, whom I shall not name here.  With
that exception, comp.std.c++ is basically a *good* group.  What is the
saying, "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."


On the Moderator (if moderation is decided upon.)
The moderator shouldn't be a member of the ANSI C++ Committee. Although
very sincere in their efforts to do the best thing, I think there might
be a conflict of interests.  Someone more impartial would be better.


On Moderation
 The one thing I have in favor of moderation is that I know some people,
very good, talented people who would certainly make a contribution to
C++ here who will not participate in these groups because of the
flaming.  However, there is no protection from articles being
dragged from the one group (comp.std.c++) and being "abused" in the
other.
If they do decide to moderate comp.std.c++, they should have an
unmoderated version as well.  A tight lid is not a good idea
(unmoderated acts as safety valve.)  Someone suggested comp.lang.c++ as
a place where stuff could spill over.  That group is already, as I said
above, overburdened, and one actually gets more visibility there.

I am not saying the ideas above are all *exactly* right, but I do think
they should be considered.