Subject:
|
Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Dec 1998 01:07:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1197 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpien@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I know that Robert's Rules of Order do not completely apply here, but
> nonetheless:
>
> "Call the question!"
>
> That is, we've talked about it for a while now and I think many
> stakeholders have stated their positions.
>
> Key questions...
>
> Do we have a consensus?
>
> Todd, what is your process? Do you plan to make a decision even without
> consensus (realising that a decision not to do so is easily reversable
> later, but revoking a decision to do so later will be harder)? If so,
> have you? If so, what is it?
Still more discussion is needed, I think. Crossposting is the sticky issue.
Let me summarize what I believe to be the crux of the matter -- and I
apologize in advance that this will be mostly stream-of-consciousness...
If rec.toys.lego were carried here, we have to be careful that we didn't
create some loophole through crossposting whereby people could post to
lugnet.* groups without having gone through the news-posting setup. In
other words, a certain percentage of messages crossposted to rec.toys.lego
and lugnet.* groups simply has to be rejected. The question is, is it
better for that percentage to be 30% or for it to be 100%? It's not an
option for it to be 0% (letting everything through) because that destroys
the safeguards installed in October.
I don't like the idea of rejecting -some- crossposts because it means that
threads will often have holes in them.
However, I don't like the idea of rejecting -all- crossposts either because
crossposting seems like it could be useful.
So I think it comes down to the lesser of two evils.
Currently, there is very close to zero (if not zero) crossposting between
rec.toys.lego and lugnet.* groups -- because you need a caching NNRP server
to make it happen easily, and the newsserver here rejects messages
crossposted to groups it doesn't carry (this was to help interactively with
typos originally; perhaps it should only reject messages crossposted to
lugnet.* groups that don't exist).
I don't think crossposting between lugnet.* groups and rec.toys.lego is
particularly missed at the moment -- we hear people saying (when asked) that
they'd like to see it, but not much of people speaking up about it without
being asked.
One thing is for certain in either case: it is much easier to disable
crossposting now and add it later than it is to add it now and remove it
later if it was a mistake.
Carrying rec.toys.lego here and not allowing crossposting changes the
dynamics of things very little. Carrying rec.toys.lego here and allowing
crossposting changes the dynamics of things quite a bit.
I think crossposting is the big sticky issue. The other issues,
- that there would be no archiving of rec.toys.lego here
- that messages in rec.toys.lego would expire from the server here
after ~2 weeks
- that rec.toys.lego would be carried in its entirety, including
unwanted spam, HTML, binaries
seem to cause little concern.
Again, the advantages of carrying rec.toys.lego here include:
- convenience for people who read lugnet.* groups who currently have to
use two news servers for their LEGO news.
- help people like Erik Olson who are missing out on lugnet.* groups
because they've decided its too much work for them to maintain two
newsserver configurations.
- slow, halt, or reverse the "brain drain" away from rec.toys.lego
The only way it could hurt people, I think, is if they expect A but get B
(where A and B are sets of features) and A and B differ so widely as to
create frustration and/or confusion.
So let's think about what A is now that we know what B has to be.
Given the concept...
"The rec.toys.lego Usenet newsgroup is carried at the lugnet.com
newsserver."
...what are all the possible conclusions, assumptions, and expectations that
people draw, make, or have? What will automatically assume when they see
rec.toys.lego showing up in the list of groups hosted here?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) I am against having Rec.Toys.Lego on the Lugnet server, but you decide to do this, could you make the messages expire after three weeks? This would give most of us a chance to recover from a computer crash, where it might take a little time to (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) Yes. (...) That's because we (I anyway) are slightly egoistic. It doesn't matter that much to me if RTL stays alive or not now that I'm mainly reading Lugnet. I expect that RTL'ers actually miss cross-posting from Lugnet because the "big guys" (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| Speaking for myself, I feel RTL should not be carried here, and membership should be sought other ways (1). (...) I am not particularly sympathetic to this, and for me it is not a concern. (...) Too much work to configure two readers? But not to (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> I know that Robert's Rules of Order do not completely apply here, but nonetheless: "Call the question!" That is, we've talked about it for a while now and I think many stakeholders have stated their positions. Key (...) (26 years ago, 7-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
132 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
