comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? - VMS

This is a discussion on comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? - VMS ; OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow storm idea: Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ?

  1. comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ?

    OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow
    storm idea:

    Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax
    gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to the other ?

    Granted, the ITRC moderators would have a bigger jobs of deleting all
    the posts they judge to be inappropriate on an HP site, but in the end,
    it would reduce the fragmentation of an already small community.

    Perhaps the ITRC gateway could be unidirectional (ITRC to c.o.v.) which
    would eliminate the moderation work, but still allow people to benefit
    from whatever disscussions happen over there (and especially since such
    would get archived as c.o.v. posts in deja news (google).


    Just an idea.

  2. Re: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ?

    On Dec 2, 9:49 am, JF Mezei wrote:
    > OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow
    > storm idea:
    >
    > Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax
    > gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to the other ?
    >
    > Granted, the ITRC moderators would have a bigger jobs of deleting all
    > the posts they judge to be inappropriate on an HP site, but in the end,
    > it would reduce the fragmentation of an already small community.
    >
    > Perhaps the ITRC gateway could be unidirectional (ITRC to c.o.v.) which
    > would eliminate the moderation work, but still allow people to benefit
    > from whatever disscussions happen over there (and especially since such
    > would get archived as c.o.v. posts in deja news (google).
    >
    > Just an idea.


    ITRC requires a login, so it would be very difficult to get the
    security sorted.

    Besides that, there's a lot of rubbish on comp.vms, where the ITRC is
    generally much cleaner and to the point. I personally wouldn't want to
    see the two mixed.

    Rob.

  3. Re: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ?

    On Dec 3, 9:18 am, Rob wrote:
    > On Dec 2, 9:49 am, JF Mezei wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow
    > > storm idea:

    >
    > > Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax
    > > gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to the other ?

    >
    > > Granted, the ITRC moderators would have a bigger jobs of deleting all
    > > the posts they judge to be inappropriate on an HP site, but in the end,
    > > it would reduce the fragmentation of an already small community.

    >
    > > Perhaps the ITRC gateway could be unidirectional (ITRC to c.o.v.) which
    > > would eliminate the moderation work, but still allow people to benefit
    > > from whatever disscussions happen over there (and especially since such
    > > would get archived as c.o.v. posts in deja news (google).

    >
    > > Just an idea.

    >
    > ITRC requires a login, so it would be very difficult to get the
    > security sorted.
    >
    > Besides that, there's a lot of rubbish on comp.vms, where the ITRC is
    > generally much cleaner and to the point. I personally wouldn't want to
    > see the two mixed.
    >
    > Rob.


    How about a daily digest then?

    I'm one of the ones who find the "look and feel", and in particular
    the self-congratulatory "points make prizes" aspects, of ITRC more
    than a little offputting. To the extent that I don't bother with ITRC
    any more. Obviously I wouldn't necessarily have much to contribute in
    comparison with some of the famous names who are there but whose
    wisdom is not in comp.os.vms, but (a) they have things I can learn
    from (b) just occasionally I may have (acceptable) things to
    contribute. And that's not happening for me at the moment.

  4. Re: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ?

    In article , JF Mezei
    writes:

    > OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow
    > storm idea:
    >
    > Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax
    > gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to the other ?


    Why?

    > Granted, the ITRC moderators would have a bigger jobs of deleting all
    > the posts they judge to be inappropriate on an HP site, but in the end,
    > it would reduce the fragmentation of an already small community.


    Why should they want the extra work?

    > Perhaps the ITRC gateway could be unidirectional (ITRC to c.o.v.) which
    > would eliminate the moderation work, but still allow people to benefit
    > from whatever disscussions happen over there (and especially since such
    > would get archived as c.o.v. posts in deja news (google).


    This would make more sense, IF they could be properly formatted as
    usenet posts readable and threadable in an ordinary newsreader.

    Personally (and, coincidentally, I'm having an email conversation about
    this right now involving other newsgroups and other forums), I don't
    like forums. The commands, syntax, look and feel etc differ from forum
    to forum, I need a (sometimes fancy) web browser, I can't write stuff in
    EDT and it is not easy to kill entire threads.

    To keep the noise level down, there are moderated newsgroups. Having
    been a co-moderator of a newsgroup for a decade, once one gets things
    properly set up it is definitely less work, from a technical point of
    view, than moderating a forum.

    A better goal, in my opinion, would be comp.os.vms.moderated, if there
    really is a need to keep the noise level down. I would even volunteer
    to moderate it! However, it would probably need 5--10 co-moderators to
    keep the load on each one at a reasonable level.


+ Reply to Thread