Re: The problems in comp.lang.c

santosh <santosh.k83@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

>I think that when c.l.c was created there was no concept of a formal
>charter as it exists now. What Jacob posts is a sort of
>founding "manifesto", which does indeed encourage discussion of
>platform specific details. But that was in 1986, things have changed a
>lot since then.

Agreed; times change, and the use of the Internet (including its
great-great grandfather, Usenet) can certainly change along with them.
No charter from the past, when far fewer readers probably had far less
to agree and disagree about, in no a reason to discount one now.

>> So, why don't (we) participants develop a charter, over a period of a
>> month, have a voting period, and declare an outcome?  There will then
>> be little doubt, or need for constant sniping and ranting, as to what
>> the agreed role of this newsgroup is.

>I'm afraid that disagreements will persist. They are fondly held
>differences of opinion and a charter, even if one were to be enforced,
>is not some Holy Writ for everyone is going to adhere to. The OT posts
>are going to continue and so will the trolling of the trolls. The only
>real answer is moderation, for which of course there is already a
>group, and a spectacular failure at that.

Agreed, disagreements will persist, but so many other corners of the
Internet and Usenet can manage a consensus about their own purpose.
c.l.c. has no extra-ordinary properties that should prevent its smoother
communication.  At present a small band of people dismiss many questions
as "off topic", but can only apply their own beliefs as to what that
means, and can't point to any single statement.

A charter, at least, provides something that all participants can point
to and indentify what is topical and what not.  Do***ents (such as Ben
Pfaff's topicality guidance) can easily inform "off topic" users why
their questions are off topic, and could guide them elsewhere, without
the too frequent arguments seen here.

-- 
Chris.