Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:12900 comp.os.386bsd.development:1402 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:1769 comp.os.386bsd.apps:642 comp.os.386bsd.questions:6683 comp.os.386bsd.misc:1440
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs,comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcom.com!jmonroy
From: jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr)
Subject: Evidence to the moderators conflict-of-interest
Message-ID: <jmonroyCG9v5u.K7D@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 10:44:17 GMT
Lines: 142
Evidence to the moderators
conflict-of-interst
As has been requested this is evidence to the moderators
conflict-of-interest.
===========================================================================
mail cgd@postgres.Berkeley.EDU
Re: Subject: Re: about the FAQ
It is good and well that you replied. The intent of
my communications with you has been to verify that
even you can not deny the conflict-of-interest you
claim not to have.
For future reference, it should be noted that as the
responsible party for "announce" and a community-held
position your communications about 386bsd, and the business
conduted here in, are a matter of public interest.
>> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 93 22:08:17 -0800
>>
>> > It has been about 20 hours since I sent you the FAQ's for
>> > 386BSD. You have not posted or responded. Please send
>> > a response within 4 hours.
>>
>> "so kill me" -- my moderator's duties are second to others, like,
>> say, sleep and life. i've told that to people before, and will
>> now. you got the last one to me just as i was going to sleep, so
>> that ate a good 12 hours right there (sleep, shower, food, "life,"
>> etc.) Things have been known to sit in my queue for up to two days;
>> those who have something important to say at an exact date/time
>> know to get it to the various moderators in question (generally it's
>> for more than one group -- like the X announcements) well beforehand.
>> your posts had no such time constraints.
>>
You can say this in general, but the facts remain.
As per my original posting, you did respond.
And in responding to the orginal posting you did in fact
verify that you did receive the article. This be it a fact,
that you did receive article(s) from me, you must act duely
in a timely fashion. Further, not responding and posting other
articles is in fact a misrepresentation that you are acting
responsibly and without conflict.
Stated plainly:
You did post other articles and you did not respond in a
timely fashion even after acknowledge the arrival of the
original articles. When original responding you did not
say "ya or na"; you simple refused to answer. Ignoring
articles after acknowledgement is a shunting of your
duties with a visible conflict-of-interest.
>> i decided that since the intent of your posting was to get the
>> FAQ on the newsgroup, i was going to:
>> (1) get the FAQ from the news archives
>> (2) repost it indicating:
>> (a) that it was a repost
>> (b) that you requested the repost, becaue there was
>> no version available on the newsgroups, and
>> because a version wasn't seen 'in the wings'
>> (c) the complete headers of the original articles
>>
You neither implied nor mentioned this in any previous
messages to me.
>> the reasons for this:
>> (1) it give proper attribution for the original postings,
>> something which you failed to do
>>
Untrue. All articles were sent "as posted" to the "announce".
I neither modified nor did I claim responsiblity for the
articles.
The articles are "self attributed" by the authors.
I did not remove nor did I modify the original contents
of the articles.
>> (2) it's a trustworthy source of the information. I'm not
>> going to post something you claim is a 'repost'
>> without checking it myself (because i don't trust
>> you. yes, read that again) and in this case
>> it's impossible to check, so i'll repost it from
>> a known source myself
>>
My "trustworthyness" has not been the question here,
but I accept your reason, as reasonable.
>>
>> [deleted stuff]
>>
>> > Also please note that your response may be part of a future
>> > article. Please respond.
>>
>> note the header on this message (and those of the rest of the mail
>> i've sent you). if you repost it, in whole or part without
>> prior explicit permission from me, i will take it up with your
>> sysadmins there at netcom. Note that this reply DOES NOT constitute
>> any sort of approval for reposting.
>>
I'm afraid it does my friend. Laws concerning the
recording of a two-way conversatin are already in place.
I.E. if you record a voice conversation with a second party
you must first notify them that your are doing so _or_ provide
a signal by which they will know that they are being recorded.
This law applies here.
You were notified prior to the fact and you are now
obligated to the facts.
==========================================
Since you did decide to answer and you did decide to repost the
FAQ for 386bsd yourself, you must now act in a timely fashion.
Not acting in a timely fashion will plainly show your
conflict-of-interst here. Ignoring my mail will also show a
plain conflict-of-interst. It also shows that you are not
acting responsibly as moderator of "announce".
Further, I should expect that you will make a statement about this
so you might consider putting a schedule to your action.
Not doing so will show a conflict-of-interst on your part.
___________________________________________________________________________
Jesus Monroy Jr jmonroy@netcom.com
Zebra Research
/386BSD/device-drivers /fd /qic /clock /documentation
___________________________________________________________________________