In need of c.l.p.discussion

[Rune Steffensen]

Erik Max Francis meditated and wrote something like this:

> Rune Steffensen wrote:
>
>> Any comments on this?
>
> First, due to the anarchic nature of Usenet, there is on possible way
> this could work.

Really? It works quite nice in the no.* hierarchy, if not always, it DO
reduce the noise.

>  There's be no incentive to get people to do this, and
> there'd be no way to enforce it when they didn't.

Of course not, but it would be in their own interest, and there are
surprisingly many sensible people out there.

>  I've never heard of
> an existing newsgroup that reliably operates the way you describe, so
> you're talking about something without precedent.

Well, see above.
We don't need reliability: if just a couple of people in a thread takes
responsiblity the mess would be considerably reduced.

>  Besides, that's what
> comp.lang.python is _for_ -- discussion.

About _python_ yes, not about lisp or scheme.

> Second, remember that comp.lang.python is also gated to a mailing list.
> Unless you gate both to separate lists, then the people on the mailing
> list suddenly see discussions disappear.

I didn't know this, and I can see a slight problem. However, when a thread
disapears to another group, it should already be _off_topic_ (that's the
whole point, remember?), so in most cases, I guess this would be more of a
relief to the subscribers, than annoyance.

-- 
-rune
Incognito, ergo sum.