Text 6303, 104 rader
Skriven 2007-09-19 20:05:56 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
   Kommentar till text 6286 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: FidoNews 24:38 [02/06]: Editorial
=========================================
Hello Björn.

19 Sep 07 23:40, you wrote to me:

 JS>>     If I were a new SysOp or a new member of Fidonet and wanted
 JS>> to know about article specifications. If I ran across a ARTPSEC
 JS>> file I would make the initial assumption that it was meant to be
 JS>> current.

 BF>    When I was a new member of Fidonet I didn't start out running
 BF> across any artspec file at all. I did however run across something
 BF> called FidoNews that I started to read with great interest -- and has
 BF> been doing since.

 BF>    I also was able to read the time stamp of the files available at
 BF> the different BBSs I visited, and could distinguish between a file
 BF> that was several years old and one that was just a week old. But then,
 BF> that was me -- I guess YMMV.

     Me too. If I noticed the file date to be old (A week or a month). I
would look for a newer file at that location and failing that at other
locations. My point was that if the file is out there and still able to
be used by people. It would only make sense that it was being actively
updated. If the file was no longer intended to be used then it should be
removed or at least updated to a null file or a file pointing to the
location of the current information.


 JS>> Why leave information
 JS>> out there if it will no longer be used or updated?

 BF>    For the same reason one keeps all the old issues of the Snooze
 BF> perhaps. For historical reasons.

     I can understand aquiring old files for historical reasons. I do that
myself at the net 282 website. But those files are not meant to be current
or updated and that fact is made clear. Now, if I look in a file area on
a BBS or a FTP site and see a list of ARTSPEC.DOC files. I will pick the
newest file date thinking that it will be the most current of those
available. Again my point being that if the file is out there it should be
made current.

 BF>    Jeeezzz... I simply cannot believe that you guys are making such an
 BF> issue about an outdated file. Is it really that important to you? Do
 BF> you really think I will go ahead and update an outdated file that no
 BF> longer serves any purpose? Do any of you honestly believe that
 BF> updating that old file will make people start writing articles for the
 BF> Snooze? Honestly?

     No. I don't see the updating of the file as having anything to do
with whether people submit articles or not. That is an entirely differant
issue. I see the updating of the file more of a priciple thing. A historical
file is fine and should be preserved. But a file that people may also use
and that provides outdated and incorrect information hinders the process
instead of helping it as was probably intended.

     I have a number of historical files available. But I make it clear
which are meant to be historical and those meant to be current or actively
updated. I try not to leave people wondering.

 JS>> Either delete and halt distribution of the file

 BF>    The distribution has been halted for almost a decade, but you can
 BF> bet your sweet little asses that I will *not* delete an historical
 BF> document like that -- just as I will *not* delete any other of all the
 BF> historical documents I have on my BBS. OK?

    And I would never want you to Björn. The situation is that with nothing
being done to specify people will see the file use the information it
contains. How are they to know how often it gets updated? Or in this case
that the file will no longer be updated. Then again the next editor may
choose to once again update the file.

    Hmmm.... this copy of policy4 I found is years old. There must be a newer
policy file available somewhere. Oh, it's no longer being actively updated.
Is it just a histrical file or is it current?


 JS>> Is it that much trouble to continue to keep the updated? Or is it
 JS>> a case of one more thing that the editor just doesn't want have
 JS>> to bother with?

 BF>    So that's where y'all were going? As if we didn't understand... :(

     I can't speak for others Björn. But for me given that you have stated
that you are tired of dealing with people as editor and moderator. It was a
logical extension to make. You seem to desire to minimize your duties as
editor and moderator and the curtailing of updates to Fidonews related files
would be a step toward that end.


 BF>    As I said several times now (can you please start reading for
 BF> comprehension?) the information is updated whenever needed and it is
 BF> posted in the Snooze each week.

    How about whereever needed?

 BF> --- Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
 BF>  * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin:  (1:14/5)