[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups is the goal
In article <4di8di$fov@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>If I'm advertising an event which will take place in 4 days, then I
>>probably won't be sending an announcement to a moderated group which
>>doesn't clear articles that quickly.
>
>If you are advertising for something which takes place in 4 days, not many
>people outside your town will come in such a short notice.
Then we can extend the analogy, and quite reasonably so - let's say
that I'm advertising something that's going to happen in 14 days, but
for some reason, the next approval event doesn't occur for 10 days. As
a result, the effective notice becomes only 4 days. That's why you see
more info posts on SCI.
>As Dr. Jai Maharaj
>observed the soc.culture.indian.info practically has no posts. And we all know
>that sci has a much wider audience than srh.
I'm glad that this was brought up, since SCI.info is exactly the case
of what happens when there isn't a provision for replacing the
moderator. In the case of that newsgroup, the sole moderator left for
India, and nobody else was put in charge. (all this is from memory)
Multiple moderators and provisions for replacing the moderator
would've been a great help for SCI.info. Note that the reorg RFD has
both.
>>How will switching a group from unmoderated to auto-moderated reduce
>>delays?
>
>Well, I am no UNIX jock. So I just assumed that since the machine has to check
>for certain things on each post, it'll take lesser time. I thought this would
>be done once a day or on first come, first served kind of basis. So, does it
>mean that this checking is not done automatically?
On an unmoderated group, there is no checking whatsoever, and each
local newsserver can accept articles. The auto-moderated setup of SRV
requires checks, and it is performed continuously, rather than in
batches. So, the time difference between an unmoderated group and an
automoderate group is negligible. The only observable difference is
the order of sites receiving the posts. Obviously, since the posts
originate at different sites in the two systems, the order will be
different.
>>given that we most definitely have seen info post on SRH, I am willing
>>to bet that an info group would be utilized.
>
>No. See the soc.culture.indian.info group.
See my comments above on how that could have been prevented.
>BTW, I'm also aginst the rule in the RFD forbidding excerpts from books. If
>the guy posting has got permission and the stuff has relevance, why not?
The rule you envision doesn't exist - if the person has permission,
copyrighted works are indeed allowed under the reorg RFD. The
restrictions placed on using copyrighted works stem from the "fair
use" guidelines of US law, specifically:
" ii) quote long passages from copyrighted works, without extensive
commentary as required for fair use.
In addition, material whose copyright is not owned by the poster, or
specifically given to the poster by its owner, may, at the moderator's
discretion, not be accepted for posting, to avoid any possible charges
against moderators of complicity in copyright infringement."
The top of that quote refers to cases where the copyright permission
has not been obtained, and the passage does not get covered under fair
use. The second part is obviously what you were talking about, and
you'll notice that your interpretation was incorrect.
-Vivek
Thu Jan 18 09:57:24 CST 1996
