Ron Guilmette (rfg@segfault.us.com) writes:
> This is a formal Call For Discussion on the topic of converting the
> comp.std.c++ newsgroup from an unmoderated newgroup to a moderated
> newsgroup.

My opinion is it's better to create comp.std.c++.moderated group
with reflecting all posting in it to  comp.std.c++ (but not
vice versa).

If that is too difficult, use a more relaxed moderation policy.
For example if a source of submitions proved to be too far off
the topic, reject his mail for a month. This leaves a hole
for him to continue from other address with other name, but
makes less work for moderator.

Vladimir Chukharev,
chu@prosun.first.gmd.de

:                        David Pannett (dpannett@wellesley.edu)

: I believe that mail to obviously lost souls is a better approach to the
: (minor) problem of off-topic newbies; they are pleased to be told where
: to seek help.  In any case I personally think that this group should
: avoid moderation, especially at this time, since the conversion will
: inevitably suggest censorship, no matter how well-intentioned the
: moderator.

You could mail forever and ever and not stem the tide. There are many
moderated newsgroups that seem to work just fine, and the narrow focus
of comp.std.c++ makes it a good candidate for moderation (in more
than one sense, actually, judging from some recent postings by y'@ll know
who.) I'd argue in favor of moderating comp.std.c++ and leaving comp.
lang.c++ unmoderated. That would give ample outlet to those who feel
censored.

Cay
horstman@cs.sjsu.edu

With respect to Ron Guilmette's proposal in the subject header, please
count me as another who isn't comfortable with the proposed conversion.

While it is surely true that there is a certain amount of off-topic noise
in this group, I think that Mr. Guilmette's proposal itself illustrates
some of the potential pitfalls of moderation in this case:

RG>those dealing primarily with programming style, programming techniques, or
RG>the details or operation of specific implementations (or their associated
RG>libraries) would, if not raising (or responding to) issues which have
RG>relevance to the C++ (draft) standard, be returned to the sender or else
RG>would be round-filed.

Now, it's not hard to sympathize with the desire to "round-file" some of the
stuff that's appeared here lately; but even the most sympathetic moderator
will then find himself/herself acting as a censor.  The quotation above
certainly leaves open a considerable gray area in which postings are
approved or rejected at the discretion of a single party's judgment.  I am
sure that we can all agree that certain postings are *entirely* off-topic
("Why won't my program run outside the IDE?"), but perhaps see several
times as many postings that are perhaps questionable, yet not necessarily
misdirected.

Will the result of moderation be that each poster, or at least each poster
lacking comp.std.c++ tenure or fame, needs to explicitly justify the
relevance of his or her submissions to the newsgroup, lest the moderator
decide that this person's concerns aren't *really* related to the
ANSI/ISO draft standard?  In particular, as the period of public review
approaches, this possibility makes me more than a little nervous.

I believe that mail to obviously lost souls is a better approach to the
(minor) problem of off-topic newbies; they are pleased to be told where
to seek help.  In any case I personally think that this group should
avoid moderation, especially at this time, since the conversion will
inevitably suggest censorship, no matter how well-intentioned the
moderator.

Last point: I notice that another poster wrote that this discussion would
be redirected away from comp.std.c+; not to question standard netiquette,
but I wonder if this particular issue should really be resolved in
private, as will effectively happen if all discussion is directed away
from the newsgroup.

                        David Pannett (dpannett@wellesley.edu)

"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@rahul.net> writes:
>This is a formal Call For Discussion on the topic of converting the
>comp.std.c++ newsgroup from an unmoderated newgroup to a moderated
>newsgroup.

No, this is not yet a formal call for discussion.  It could quickly be
made one.  Simply repost the message, with news.announce.newgroups as one
of the groups.  Direct followups to news.groups.  Other than that, you've
done everything right, and I would actually vote for the move (to make the
group moderated).  But if you don't follow procedure it won't happen.

First there is a discussion period; if nothing new comes up (like multiple
volunteer moderators) a call for votes can be issued.  Because of past
hassles, such votes are run by a group called the Usenet Volunteer
Votetakers rather than by the proponent.  There must be at least a 2/3
majority and there must be at least 100 more yes votes than no votes.
Check out news.announce.newgroups where the official calls for discussion
and calls for votes are always posted, along with the guidelines.

--
-- Joe Buck  <jbuck@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Phone: +1 415 694 1729

In article <3l54dc$smj@news.erinet.com>, pstemari@erinet.com says...
>
>In article <3l4t7k$6o3@hustle.rahul.net>,
>   "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@rahul.net> wrote:
>:This is a formal Call For Discussion on the topic of converting
>:the comp.std.c++ newsgroup from an unmoderated newgroup to a
>:moderated newsgroup.
>
>Fleming and the freshmen are annoying, but are they really THAT
>annoying?  I've been seeing 4-5 off-topic posts a day, which isn't
>that bad.  Seeing topics cross-posted to comp.lang.c++ and
>comp.std.c++ is more of a headache, since you get thread explosion.
>
>FWIW, I'm running over a 14.4kbps SLIP/NNTP link and only have
>limited killfile capabilities.
>
>        --Paul J. Ste. Marie, pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com
>
>The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network claims that they capture every
>public posting that has their name ("FinCEN") in it.  I wish them good
hunting.

For the record can you please use my full name and company when referring
to me. Thanks. The ANSI process is a serious process, and serious agencies
such as the Federal Trade Commission, Justice Department, the House and
Senate as well as ANSI itself, will be better served if the record has
more clear postings.

Also, for those companies that have their employees obtain e-mail accounts
via such services as America Online and BIX, and then proceed to appear
to be "independent" of their true identity and their true company, for
the record, I would like to say that I think this constitutes criminal
fraud and should be reviewed by employers on a regular basis. (Which
their PR departments do almost daily).

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3l4t7k$6o3@hustle.rahul.net>, rfg@rahul.net says...
>
>This is a formal Call For Discussion on the topic of converting the
>comp.std.c++ newsgroup from an unmoderated newgroup to a moderated
>newsgroup.
>
>In lieu of any other volunteers who are ready, willing, and able to
>undertake the responsibilities of moderator, I offer my own services
>as primary moderator.  Obviously, a suitable backup moderator will
>also have to be secured (so if you are willing to accept that respon-
>sibility, please speak up).
>
>Rationale
>---------
>
>It has always been the case that the comp.std.c++ newgroup has attracted
>a significant number of off-topic postings.  An inordinate number of
>people are either unware of, or forgetful of the the fact that the
>comp.std.c++ newsgroup was established primarily as a serious technical
>discussion group for the discussion of the technical details of the
>evolving/forthcoming international C++ standard.
>
>A primary contributor to this phenomenon may be the fact that in various
>listings of USENET newgroups, comp.std.c++ appears _before_ comp.lang.c++,
>thus leading innumerable newbies to mistake this group for _the_ general
>discussion group about the C++ language, its everyday usage, and its
>specific implementations.  Additionally however, many discussions of
>details of the various drafts of the standard can be seen to devolve
>over time into mere discussions of programming techniques which are
>perhaps better carried out in the comp.lang.c++ newsgroup (where they
>can benefit from, and be of benefit to a wider audience).
>
>Given that a significant number of readers and participants of comp.std.c++
>come here seeking a forum for the exchange of technical information
relating
>to the (draft) international C++ standard, and given the unfortunate fact
>that the average signal-to-noise ratio has historically been lower than
>desired by a number of these participants, and (finally) given the
additional
>fact the the signal-to-noise ratio of _all_ USENET newgroups is declining
>over time (due primarily to the continuous, but exponentially increasing
>influx of additional inexperienced users), it now seems altogether fitting
>and proper that we convert this newgroup to moderated status as a way of
>insuring its continued relevance and usefulness.
>
>Proposed Moderation Policies
>----------------------------
>
>In any proposal of this nature, the intended moderation policies of the
>proposed moderator must natually be of paramount importance to the group
>participants.
>
>Although I am well known as a person with strong (some would say `biased')
>views of my own on a wide variety of both technical and non-technical
issues
>related to the C++ languages and its standardization, I firmly believe that
>were I to undertake the responsibilities of moderation of this group, I
would
>also implicitly be accepting a solemn responsibility not to allow my own
>views to color any group moderation decision in any way.  I would take my
>responsibilities to act as an unbiased moderator very seriously, and I
>would count on the participants to hold me to a high standard in this
regard.
>
>More generally, my goal as moderator would simply be to increase the signal
>and to decrease the noise.  Submissions which were either clearly or
arguably
>on-topic would be passed through without hesitation, leaving only those
>which deal only (or primarily) with various unrelated or marginally-related
>topics to be returned to the senders.  Any posting whose subject matter was
>primarily TECHNICAL and related to the standardization of the C++
programming
>language would be passed to the group, while non-technical submissions
and/or
>those dealing primarily with programming style, programming techniques, or
>the details or operation of specific implementations (or their associated
>libraries) would, if not raising (or responding to) issues which have
>relevance to the C++ (draft) standard, be returned to the sender or else
>would be round-filed.
>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>That's about it.  I request your participation in (and your indulgence of)
>a further discussion of the possible conversion of this group to a
moderated
>status.
>
>P.S.  In truth, if it came to pass, I would be a reluctant moderator.  I
>frankly have little desire to tackle this additional task on top of the
>many other responsibilities I already have.  I have been brought to the
>point of volunteering for this assignment only by the continuing (and
>increasing) deterioration in the signal-to-noise ratio here in
comp.std.c++.
>Please believe me when I say that I would take no offense whatsoever if
>some other kind soul were to step forward and also volunteer his/her
>services as moderator.  Quite the contrary.  I would heartily encourage
>any qualified person who has the time for this task to make their presence
>known.
>--
>
>-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting
-------------------
>---- E-mail: rfg@segfault.us.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test
----
>-------------------------------------------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes
-

This is great!
This is very "timely"...
This is going to play well in D.C...

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

This is a formal Call For Discussion on the topic of converting the
comp.std.c++ newsgroup from an unmoderated newgroup to a moderated
newsgroup.

In lieu of any other volunteers who are ready, willing, and able to
undertake the responsibilities of moderator, I offer my own services
as primary moderator.  Obviously, a suitable backup moderator will
also have to be secured (so if you are willing to accept that respon-
sibility, please speak up).

Rationale
---------

It has always been the case that the comp.std.c++ newgroup has attracted
a significant number of off-topic postings.  An inordinate number of
people are either unware of, or forgetful of the the fact that the
comp.std.c++ newsgroup was established primarily as a serious technical
discussion group for the discussion of the technical details of the
evolving/forthcoming international C++ standard.

A primary contributor to this phenomenon may be the fact that in various
listings of USENET newgroups, comp.std.c++ appears _before_ comp.lang.c++,
thus leading innumerable newbies to mistake this group for _the_ general
discussion group about the C++ language, its everyday usage, and its
specific implementations.  Additionally however, many discussions of
details of the various drafts of the standard can be seen to devolve
over time into mere discussions of programming techniques which are
perhaps better carried out in the comp.lang.c++ newsgroup (where they
can benefit from, and be of benefit to a wider audience).

Given that a significant number of readers and participants of comp.std.c++
come here seeking a forum for the exchange of technical information relating
to the (draft) international C++ standard, and given the unfortunate fact
that the average signal-to-noise ratio has historically been lower than
desired by a number of these participants, and (finally) given the additional
fact the the signal-to-noise ratio of _all_ USENET newgroups is declining
over time (due primarily to the continuous, but exponentially increasing
influx of additional inexperienced users), it now seems altogether fitting
and proper that we convert this newgroup to moderated status as a way of
insuring its continued relevance and usefulness.

Proposed Moderation Policies
----------------------------

In any proposal of this nature, the intended moderation policies of the
proposed moderator must natually be of paramount importance to the group
participants.

Although I am well known as a person with strong (some would say `biased')
views of my own on a wide variety of both technical and non-technical issues
related to the C++ languages and its standardization, I firmly believe that
were I to undertake the responsibilities of moderation of this group, I would
also implicitly be accepting a solemn responsibility not to allow my own
views to color any group moderation decision in any way.  I would take my
responsibilities to act as an unbiased moderator very seriously, and I
would count on the participants to hold me to a high standard in this regard.

More generally, my goal as moderator would simply be to increase the signal
and to decrease the noise.  Submissions which were either clearly or arguably
on-topic would be passed through without hesitation, leaving only those
which deal only (or primarily) with various unrelated or marginally-related
topics to be returned to the senders.  Any posting whose subject matter was
primarily TECHNICAL and related to the standardization of the C++ programming
language would be passed to the group, while non-technical submissions and/or
those dealing primarily with programming style, programming techniques, or
the details or operation of specific implementations (or their associated
libraries) would, if not raising (or responding to) issues which have
relevance to the C++ (draft) standard, be returned to the sender or else
would be round-filed.

--------------------------------------------

That's about it.  I request your participation in (and your indulgence of)
a further discussion of the possible conversion of this group to a moderated
status.

P.S.  In truth, if it came to pass, I would be a reluctant moderator.  I
frankly have little desire to tackle this additional task on top of the
many other responsibilities I already have.  I have been brought to the
point of volunteering for this assignment only by the continuing (and
increasing) deterioration in the signal-to-noise ratio here in comp.std.c++.
Please believe me when I say that I would take no offense whatsoever if
some other kind soul were to step forward and also volunteer his/her
services as moderator.  Quite the contrary.  I would heartily encourage
any qualified person who has the time for this task to make their presence
known.
--

-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting -------------------
---- E-mail: rfg@segfault.us.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ----
-------------------------------------------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -

In article <3l4t7k$6o3@hustle.rahul.net>,
   "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@rahul.net> wrote:
:This is a formal Call For Discussion on the topic of converting
:the comp.std.c++ newsgroup from an unmoderated newgroup to a
:moderated newsgroup.

Fleming and the freshmen are annoying, but are they really THAT
annoying?  I've been seeing 4-5 off-topic posts a day, which isn't
that bad.  Seeing topics cross-posted to comp.lang.c++ and
comp.std.c++ is more of a headache, since you get thread explosion.

FWIW, I'm running over a 14.4kbps SLIP/NNTP link and only have
limited killfile capabilities.

 --Paul J. Ste. Marie, pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network claims that they capture every
public posting that has their name ("FinCEN") in it.  I wish them good hunting.

[ This is not the proper place for news.groups discussions, which belong
  in news.groups. Followups directed there. ]

"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@rahul.net> writes:
> In lieu of any other volunteers who are ready, willing, and able to
> undertake the responsibilities of moderator, I offer my own services
> as primary moderator.  Obviously, a suitable backup moderator will
> also have to be secured (so if you are willing to accept that respon-
> sibility, please speak up).

I don't intend to get personal, but I would not be comfortable with
that.

> It has always been the case that the comp.std.c++ newgroup has attracted
> a significant number of off-topic postings.  An inordinate number of
> people are either unware of, or forgetful of the the fact that the
> comp.std.c++ newsgroup was established primarily as a serious technical
> discussion group for the discussion of the technical details of the
> evolving/forthcoming international C++ standard.

This is true. But moderation has many drawbacks, such as delays.

Please at least try a less extreme solution first, such as posting a
charter periodically.

        Tom

--
tob@world.std.com
TomBreton@delphi.com: Author of The Burning Tower