Re: MARKED FOR POOP Re: PEAR DB 1.6.0 has been released - now OT if not originally

Ed Prochak <ed.prochak_at_magicinterface.com> writes:

>what about PEAR DBI vs MS ACCESS Both allow connections to
>ORACLE. One is commercial, one is open source,

Correct. So one is forbidden by the charter, the other is on-topic.

>but how do I know that?

I'm not sure it matters whether _you_ know that - what matters is whether the content of the article is on-topic for the newsgroup. Or are we talking about something else?

>>I can quickly tell the difference between a typical free software
>>announcement - that briefly describes the program, lists the changes
>>in this release, and gives a homepage and download - from a typical
>>press release or marketing spam. Can't you?
>
>FROM THE SUBJECT ALONE, HELL NO!
Well maybe not, but since when did the charter specify

   'The only articles allowed on this newsgroup are ones where you can     tell from the subject line whether it is commercial or not.'

I don't see anything talking about the subject line - it talks about the article itself - and to me this seems the only sensible way to do it.

>If I have to open and read the posting, then I'm filtering junk that
>I don't want to see by looking at it.

If you don't want to see any announcements at all, whether for free or proprietary software, then you should be able to filter by subject line, because you can at least tell what is an announcement and what isn't even if you're unable to distinguish whether it is commercial or not.

>If "briefly describes the program, lists the changes in this release,
>and gives a homepage and download" are the criteria for a posting to
>be OKAY in the misc group, then ORACLE ads would be okay right?

No, because they are commercial, and so explicitly disallowed by the charter.

(I didn't suggest that the above is the criterion for an article being on-topic in this group.)

>When I want programs I look for them in appropriate groups,like
>.announce or .marketting.

Yes, and we are discussing which is the appropriate group in this case. I think that according to the charter the appropriate group is this one - and myself, I do look here for Oracle-related free software, or at least I would if such announcements were allowed.

I agree that articles should be posted to the appropriate group, but you are begging the question by assuming that .marketing is the appropriate group in this case. If you think it is, please quote part of the groups' charters to support your case.

>The majority view is exactly the point (see my other post from
>tonight on another thread). It defines the culture of the
>newsgroup. And regulars in this group has often voiced strong
>distaste for any ads in the working groups (.misc .server .tools).

I would agree, I do not think any advertising belongs in those groups. But I don't see free software release announcements as advertising, I see them as informative content, a kind of news (think of the original meaning of the word 'newsgroup').

If the majority opinion is that even non-commercial, non-marketspeak project announcements are unwelcome then I'll go along with that. I am maintaining a free software program related to Oracle myself and so far I have held off from announcing it because I didn't want to go against the prevailing feeling in this group.

At the beginning of this thread I wondered whether Daniel Morgan was the only person objecting, and singlehandedly enforcing too-strict rules not in the charter. But since you've joined in as well, and no regulars on this group have argued in favour of allowing free software announcements, I'll take that as majority opinion. I think this is a pity and a missed opportunity, since other groups can have interesting discussions following a free software announcement, but I have to accept it.

I do however suggest amending the charter so that it reflects the majority opinion - removing the part that talks about commercially oriented messages and replacing it with something more general.

-- 
Ed Avis <ed_at_membled.com>