Re: The charter for this newsgroup

HansF wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:03:58 -0800, bbulsara23 wrote:
>
> >
> > So here's a revised question:.
> >
> > Q. Should top, bottom, or interleaved posting to cdos be the posters
> > preference or the consensus preference of people that read this
> > newsgroup?
>
> My personal preference is simple - interleaved posting with trimming
> (which is almost universally bottom posting within a section). I state
> in my .sig that my preference is NO top posting and enforce it in my way,
> by totally ignoring any top-posted follow-ups, even when the content is
> reasonable.
>
> (BTW - I terribly dislike bottom posting without trimming as well. Waste
> of electrons!)
>

Me too, but I still don't quite understand the strong dislike. But of course, it should be the group preference.

>
>
> Funny thing is, when I go to groups.google.com and look at anything
> in comp.database.oracle.server, I see
> - the posts are all sorted in bottom-post order; and
> - quoted material is trimmed as much as possible;
> I wonder why that is?

I hope that is a typo in the group name :-)

>
> (I also note that all software change control reads from the top down,
> putting the older information in place first before editing with the next
> layer. Seems like a similar concept.)

I have to deal with manual change control far too often (sigh).

>
>
>
> As for setting which to use in the charter - there are far more important
> things to put into the charter. (Personally, I'd like to see
> cdo.marketplace changed to something like cdo.announce, making it more
> general than just a 'commercial' marketplace, and then adjust the charters
> for these to reflect that change.)
>
> Simply rewriting the charter and posting it somewhere is not gonna work,
> because some self-styled lawyer will point out that it's not official.
> (Been there, done that!) The way to do it is to put up a call for change,

Ooh, where did you do that?

> moderated by a third party that is connected with the official newsgroup
> charter process. This is a variation of 'creating a newsgroup' as found
> in the document at
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/

While I would agree with a no-top-posting addition to the charter, I think it is far too picayune of a subject to bother with. It is difficult to get the votes to change a charter, I think it would not work at this time. Good flamebait, but not enough for a charter amend.

>
>
> IN terms of poster's preference or member's preference ... go to any small
> town or village [say, in the mid-west] and ask directions. Ask the wrong
> way, and the locals (you know, the ones with the answer) will
> a) look at you askance;
> b) refuse to answer;
> c) give a snarly, perhaps wrong, answer; or
> d) make you the only reason for the answer is to get you on your way.
>
> This is just like any other community hall - cdo.* is just like the
> veranda at the local general store, and we are all sitting in our chairs
> contemplatin' "things". So why do you expect the locals here to respond
> any differently than any other small community? After all, we elected to
> stay here and we've adjusted to each other's personality. Few long timers
> comment about Sybrand's brusqueness, my excess verbosity, Mladen's
> cynicism or Daniel's abruptness (to name a few foibles). It's mainly
> those who haven't taken the time to look at the community and the related
> personalities that take offense, or bother to comment.

One of the best analogies I've seen. But I don't think you suffer from excess verbosity.
I've commented on the others, and left it at that, I can't make them change (although positive feedback or a bit of tummy scratching can work, at least temporarily), and one can take the view it adds local color. Expecting newbies to change is a bit more problematical, they may or may not have some strong habits from elsewhere. I don't think anything we do can eliminate that problem, all we can do is politely explain and lead by example.

>
> Bottom line - if one plans to move in here for the long term, one can
> alter the community from within, leading by new behaviour.
>
>
>
> Finally I note that, in spite of some peoples' and software companies'
> belief (probably derived from the newsgroup header and mail headers being
> similar and can be handled by the same software) these are two different
> media.
>
> Mail is personal, can be and possibly should be configured for personal
> use. Mail tends to be a stream of correspondence which has current
> meaning and content therefore tends to be fresh. Top posting is
> acceptable, and possibly preferred, because it is a dialog. Reference to
> previous discussion points are supplementary and therefore can be further
> 'down' as they are rarely used.

Even there, I've seen different quoting styles within an email, which of course is the worst.

>
> Newsgroup interaction is, on the other hand, a group interaction. It can,
> and does, have a number of diversions and tangent points. In order to
> ensure continuity on any tangent, it is therefore very important to
> provide the ties - as close as possible - between the original point of
> tangent and the actual tangent itself.

Some people never get that this can be some of the best group interaction.

>
>
> --
> Hans Forbrich
> Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
> mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
> *** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Didn't he invent ethernet?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/04/0619232&tid=144&tid=201&tid=106