Newsgroups: comp.archives.admin
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!ox.com!msen.com!emv
From: emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti)
Subject: Re: copyright status and future development of comp.archives
In-Reply-To: wilker@gauss.math.purdue.edu's message of 19 Jun 91 12:48:51 GMT
Message-ID: <EMV.91Jun21040358@bronte.aa.ox.com>
Sender: usenet@ox.com (Usenet News Administrator)
Organization: MSEN, Inc. Ann Arbor MI
References: <EMV.91Jun19020107@bronte.aa.ox.com> <13748@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 08:04:01 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <13748@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> wilker@gauss.math.purdue.edu (Clarence Wilkerson) writes:

     I particularly like the verification of the location, directories,
   and size of the archived material. There's nothing as frustrating
   as not being able to find the advertised material.

Thanks Clarence.  As you know I've been doing this stuff for almost 7
years now starting from when I was collecting ms-dos software on
um.cc.umich.edu; so far the track record at getting support for the
efforts has not been all that good.  My part-time position as
organizer of the collection was un-filled for most of a year after I
moved on to another job; it took something short of an angry mob at
the door of the Computer Center to fill the position.  (That
collection is still active at msdos.archive.umich.edu now days, a
little gray around the edges in spots, but still going.)

One of the things which will distinguish between the MSEN Archive
Service and what I'll eventually be posting to comp.archives is that
comp.archives postings won't have the verified locations and sizes in
them any more.  Identifying and double-checking these takes time and
effort, which slows down the process substantially.  I'm hoping that
something can be worked out such that the verificationn information
will still be posted to the comp.archives group (just not by me!) in
separate postings; some standard data formats would help, and it would
be an opportunity to run something like "archie" searches to see just
how many old stale copies there are out there that need to be updated.

I guess that brings up the point -- it's about time that the community
get more involved in the continued care and feeding of comp.archives
(the free group), in ways that make it better for everyone.  I'd
particularly like to work out some kind of feedback mechanism where
comments about the programs get fed back more closely to the community
here.  For instance, if there were an RN macro or GNUS function that
you could invoke when you were reading comp.archives to signal that
you thought that the software or the description was exceptional (or
lousy), that information could be fed back to a collection point and
used as a first pass at a review.  (Something like "arbitron" except
just for the one group.)  Similarly, I'd like to see first-quality
original material posted to comp.archives, like reviews or surveys,
without the absolute necessity for a moderator to get in the way.

(i'd say "unmoderate it" except for the risk of it just being another
comp.sources.wanted....)

-- 
Edward Vielmetti, moderator, comp.archives, 	emv@msen.com

"(6) The Plan shall identify how agencies and departments can
collaborate to ... expand efforts to improve, document, and evaluate
unclassified public-domain software developed by federally-funded
researchers and other software, including federally-funded educational
and training software; "
			"High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, S. 272"

