Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:13040 comp.os.386bsd.development:1552 comp.os.386bsd.apps:765 comp.os.386bsd.misc:1683
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!jmonroy
From: jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr)
Subject: Comments from the Authors of 386bsd on the C.O.I.
Message-ID: <jmonroyCHn4ED.EHD@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 01:06:12 GMT
Lines: 91
Comment in this article are to me by Lynne in response
to the posting about "RFD: The Election of a new Moderator.".
1) Don't send the Jolitz mail on this, they won't respond.
2) If you send me mail, expect no less that three day delay.
3) If you post to the thread, expect no less that a
three day delay by me.
That's it!
=================================================================
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 13:24:09 -0800
From: ljolitz@cardio.ucsf.EDU (Lynne Jolitz)
Subject: Re: please respond to Newsgroups
Jesse,
Sorry for the delay, but you know how it's been lately. Anyways,
here's my two-cents, for what it's worth.
Generally, when someone in a position to edit a newsgroup (or a newspaper
for that matter) also takes a position with one of several competing
groups, a conflict-of-interest develops. As such, a moderator (or editor)
generally chooses between being 1) a leader of a particular group or
interest and steps aside in the moderator position, or 2) declines the
leadership position with the group or interest, preferring the position
of mediating and possibly encouraging competition between several interests.
In sum, you can't wear two hats. You have to choose.
The reason neither Bill nor I wished to be a 386BSD newsgroup moderator
was that there was bound to be approaches and code announced that we
would probably not include in 386BSD releases for technical or other
reasons, and we didn't want to appear to favor a particular direction,
nor appear to sanction directions which we felt would be dead ends.
Since we couldn't moderate without inherently controlling and possibly
unwittingly supressing other opinions, we declined to be moderators.
It's ironic that the old BSD conflict-of-interest question is rearing
it's ugly head again, since the reason 386BSD Release 0.0 was released
by us (in March of 1992) was to resolve another conflict-of-interest
dilemma which arose between UCB CSRG and a commercial startup. BSD, in
particular, has a history of these little nasty mishaps that pop up
occasionally, and the resolution is rarely pretty. As usual, those who
ignore history are bound to repeat it.
The upshot: The "best" (least disruptive, most mature and professional)
thing for everyone involved would be for the old moderator to step down
"to pursue and encourage his interest" (what a great guy, everyone
would say) and a temporary "neutral" moderator (not aligned with any
group, but respected in the BSD world) take over until until another
permanent moderator can be found. This is done in the business world
all the time, and sure beats the alternatives (more disruption and
nastiness driving readers away, until not much is left except scorched
earth).
In addition, if the old moderator wishes to continue leading opinion,
he can always form his own newsgroup with a focus on that particular
agenda.
Anyways, I wish you luck in your endevour, as I feel you are right
in pointing out this conflict-of-interest, and that it really has
gone on long enough without change. I haven't much hope of success,
however, unless you manage to convince others of this. Since most
of the old readers (myself included) no longer read this newsgroup,
due to a lot of the nastiness which has gone on, it may already
be too late for this newsgroup. It doesn't affect 386BSD, however,
since I've got a number of articles in the queue for DDJ next year
anyways, so people can still read about it in the printed medium.
You can post this, if you like. If so, please let the readers know
that I won't have time to read the newsgroup discussion on this, nor
will I respond to email responses on this question. Encourage the
readers (what's left of them, that is) to decide quickly. If they
don't care, let it go, and get back to your more interesting work
with the FDC and QIC driver -- after all, that's the stuff which
will last long beyond these little virtual battles.
Lynne Jolitz.
--
Jesus Monroy Jr jmonroy@netcom.com
Zebra Research
/386BSD/device-drivers /fd /qic /clock /documentation
___________________________________________________________________________