Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: swanton@moose.usmcs.maine.edu (George P. Swanton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: [RFD] Election of a new Moderator drivel
Date: 9 Nov 1993 13:18:30 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 147
Sender: daemon@cs.utexas.edu
Message-ID: <9311091917.AA08571@moose.usmcs.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.cs.utexas.edu
int Article xxx of comp.os.386bsd.*
jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes:
> RFD
> Request For Discussion
> Election of a new moderator
>
>
> [-------------------------------------------------------]
>
> For the record:
[introductory ranting deleted]
>
>
> So as a matter of reference I will make the points
> concisely. ^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
'points' is open to debate, 'concise' is out of the question.
> Point #1
> --------
> It is all too obvious to the casual observer
> that the moderator and the author of 386BSD are
> not on friendly terms. This is a source of
> conflict.
Personal matters are not material. Give concrete examples of what you
consider to be inappropriate handling of responsibilities on behalf
of the moderator or hold your peace.
> Point #2
> --------
> Matters of fact don't deprive all the obvious.
Huh?!
> The moderator is maintaining two jobs that are
> in direct conflict-of-interest. The job as
> moderator of "announce" is in conflict with
> the job(s) concerning NETBSD.
You state your opinion but leave it unsubstantiated. I do not see a conflict.
Again, substantiate or abstain from comment.
> Point #3
> --------
> Further, some of the persons in the NETBSD
> work group are also not on good terms with
> the author. The moderator is a member of
> this group. This is also a source of conflict.
Again, irrelevant unless you can cite specific cases where the responsibilities
of the moderator have been compromised by personal issues.
> Point #4
> --------
> It is also quite apparent that NETBSD was
> started in some attempt to circumvent (or offset)
> the work being awaited by the users of 386BSD 0.1.
I believe 'provide' is more appropriate than 'circumvent' or 'offset'.
The existence of Net/Free/etcBSD in no way compromises any other groups
ability to continue development of another system.
> The reason given is, and continues to be, that
> NETBSD is a more stable environment to work in.
Sounds like a 'Good Thing' to me.
> In that NETBSD is not supporting 386bsd this is
> also a conflict.
'Not supporting' is not the same thing as opposing.
> Point #5
> ---------
> Be it that NETBSD may be the superior product,
> (so to speak) it is plain that it derives it's roots
> from previous versions of the BSD operating system,
> namely 386bsd. However, persons in the NETBSD
> group continue to down play the works, efforts, and
> good faith intents of those still involved with 386BSD.
> This is also a conflict.
So you dont like NetBSD and/or the members of the workgroup. This is not
relevant.
> Point #6
> --------
> It is also obvious, from statements, that unless
> articles for "announce" conform to a different
> criteria they will not be posted. That is, a criteria
> not wholly compatible with the original intent of
> the 386bsd newsgroup "announce". This is also
> a point of conflict.
More unsubstantiated opinions.
> Point #7
> --------
> "announce" no longer serves the purpose of informing
> the community of activities, entities, policies or
> services for or about 386BSD. It is currently
> confined to articles to the reprehense of 386BSD.
I have seen no articles in "announce" that I consider inappropriate. They
all have been some form or another of worthwhile anouncement of general
interest. Lack of (or limited) 386BSD specific traffic in all groups would
seem to indicate to the reasonable person that most people are using
something else.
> Better yet, announcements about "things" for 386BSD
> do not seem to appear on "announce", hence the
> moderated group "announce" is not serving the
> original charter. This is also a conflict.
Of course no specific examples of appropriate articles that were disallowed
are given.
> Conclusion
> ----------
> Be it the circumstances that are, either
> comp.os.386bsd.announce must terminate or the
> moderator must terminate the plainly-visible
> conflict-in-interest that is being maintained.
With regard to changing the moderator:
You have failed to present a case.
With regard to your miscellaneous ravings about NetBSD, the Jolitz's, et al:
The authors of 386BSD made a substantial contribution by *releasing* it
to the un*x community. In so doing they acknowledged that others might
produce derivative works that differed in intent from the original work.
We all thank them for their contribution. If they have a problem with
any of the derived works, that's unfortunate but out of their hands. I
really fail to see how it matters at all that you have a problem with
one of the derived works.
Your intermittent tirades contribute nothing, consume bandwidth, and
have ceased to be amusing. If you need attention, join a suport group,
if you want to complain, take it to alt.flame.