Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508241103.HAA06519@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Thu, 24 Aug 1995 12:28:24 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: Getting back on track
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 24 Aug 1995 00:26:55 -0400 from moore@CS.UTK.EDU

I'm afraid this procedure sounds tedious  and bureaucratic to me. It also
assumes people  are always available to  carry out step X  within Y days,
which in the real world isn't the case. And if you allow 2 weeks for each
step,  it will  take  forever,  whereas we  have  limited time.  Finally,
there's a  kind of assumption  that all  major user groups  are (roughly)
equally represented on  this list, which simply isn't  true. The majority
of  today's  users,  who  are  non-technical  and  aren't  interested  in
arguments of the type  "the users are just going to  have to change their
habits and  it won't  be all  that bad", aren't  represented at  all. The
recent discussions have  been going nowhere because it's been  a bunch of
techies trying to make decisions on  behalf of users who, whether we like
it or not, are the way they are  and won't change just because a group of
techies decided they should.

Since I suspect this is all directed  at the Reply-To: issue, let me make
sure I made  my point clear. Users  have been enjoying this  usage of the
Reply-To:  field for  9 years.  Whether we  like it  or not,  they simply
wouldn't understand how a bunch of  arrogant techies can decide that this
convenient  feature must  be removed  from them,  especially without  any
usable and already  available replacement. And we're not  talking about a
handful of  people, we're talking  7 figures.  So, this is  a fundamental
problem that  isn't going to  go away by making  the list more  formal or
adopting  a voting  procedure or  whatever. The  bottom line  is that  no
matter what process you use to reach this decision and whose signature(s)
you  get  at the  bottom  of  the page,  if  you  invalidate the  current
Reply-To: usage by  mailing lists I can guarantee that  the major players
will ignore  your requirement, because people  like to get a  paycheck at
the end of the month. Since as a group we probably account for 95% of the
generated Reply-To: usage that some would have removed, nothing will have
been accomplished  - other than  discrediting the  work of this  group by
showing that it  decided to inconvenience a whole  bunch of non-technical
users  simply so  that technical  power  users don't  have to  go to  the
trouble of using the -xyzzy option when replying to their message (or, in
the case  of LISTSERV, telling  it that  they want unmunged  headers, yes
each user can select individually,  allowing both techies and non-techies
to get the behaviour they like).

As for  the argument  about users  not being able  to understand  and the
chaos we'd have if we let them  run the network, that's something you can
say after 3 months,  maybe a year. When something has  been allowed for 9
years and is still widely used (and showing no signs of decline, quite to
the contrary), you're stuck with it -  period. So I suggest we just label
this one a dead horse and move on.

  Eric