*POLL* acf webring (does it help?)

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

IIRC isn't is present tense and were is PAST tense.

We were discussing the decisions to create your webring and to create
the FAQ. Both past tense. You accidentally slipped into the present
tense. HTH.

 

[rtdos]

Sort of like a "marriage" of the web and newsgroups? It's just a
webring? Then why do folks need to "join"? What information is
required to "join"? Why is "joining" an "acf webring" better than
simply subscribing to acf? Shucks, this is where all the experience
abides! Why doesn't everybody simply co-ordinate out of the
newsgroup? It's not like you need a formal release to publish a link
- most of the time anyway. Most of the premise operates on courtesy
and collective consensus most of time. And that seems like a good
thing - most of the time.

no one said anyone "had" to join. it was created to link freeware fans and
freeware authors.

The part about the anti-FAQ seems a little convuluted. FAQ am some
good thing in most cases? It's not like you have a felony record if
you break it every now and then? At least there's a set of generally
agreed upon guidelines, even though it gets a little trampled in
certain places from time to time. It, within and of itself, keeps
the discussion active so certain malevolent or shady operators don't
actively or consistently try to pawn-off cripple-ware - spyware -
backdoor-malware - take-pikktures-of-your-mamma-ware, and the like,
as legitimate freeware, by acf's generally accepted definition and
parameters. At least there's a point at which someone or a group of
like-minded-old-timers will come out and vocally object to an abuse.
Then it's really up to the group to agree or to disagree.

The FAQ is not binding. It is only an FAQ; just a guide. It is not the
charter of acf nor is it acf bylaws.

I think the OP may find themselves a little misguided, if the written
precepts are examined honestly and thoroughly. The original article
seems a little arbitrary and close-ended, at best. At worst, it
could be perceived as someone acting out a resentment and expousing a
"my way or the highway" type suggestion.

It would've never come to this if JC would quit expousing his "my way or the
highway" micro-definition of freeware.

IMHO, I doubt very seriously if any individual or small group of
individuals is going to "divide" (or "unite") acf to any significant
degree - off of it's usual datum plane - no matter what the
intention, thought and effort may be.

I never meant to divide or unify acf. JC has already attempted that.

The FAQ in acf is constantly under discussion - for as long as I've
been around here (which is a couple of days, now). And it's an OPEN
discussion and revision process. And certain of the cadre have
selflessly devoted great amounts of efforts and time and resources in
maintaining the integrity of the group - to all of our mutual benefit
as well as to the greater benefit of the computing community as a
whole!!! This group has for many years exemplified the true spirit
of the usenet experience and community. Bad and good being
ephemerally present. This is instantly evinced as fact by the OP's
article and subsequent discussion.

The FAQ is only a guidline. It is not binding on anyone.

So, the fact that someone is starting a website to promote a webring
supporting freeware is certainly commendable - but if it's an "acf"
webring it's going to have to have the sanction of acf, and abide by
the "acf" charter and FAQ's... Or else it's not an "acf" webring -
it's merely another "freeware" webring. Or more accurately, without
some sanction to definitions, it's more of a "webring claiming to
promote alleged freeware."

There is no acf charter or set of bylaws last I checked.

And there's certainly nothing wrong with that!
Thanks.

And without some kind of guidelines and boundries (to wit: an FAQ or
TOS document - unless someone's got some KGB moonlighting as
enforcers...) it sounds like an open invitation to anarchy, lunacy,
and terrorism.

But WHO defines these guidelines and boundaries?

Sounds good to me! (Even though "free love" sounds just a little bit
better 8^)) Where do we sign up?
http://q.webring.com/hub?ring=acfwebring


It just can't truly be called an "acf webring" without the approval
of the group. That's not difficult, is it?

don't need the approval of the group. if the group wants me to use the acf
faq then the acf faq must be updated and maintained with the consensus of
the group and at present it is not.

(Oh, incidentally, to elucidate your analogy with a little allegory:
the way Gov. Elect Arnold won his issue was by 1) recruiting many,
many people to his point of view and 2) by persuading them to action
(like "becoming involved"; joining the group and voting) and 3)
prevailing in a democratic process. NOT by winning one debate! And
NOT by declaring he was taking over the governor's mansion whether
anybody liked it or not.)

I didn't say he won one debate. I just said he went to one debate. If I
did, then, oh well.

So, in conclusion: HOORAY for your efforts in creating a "webring";
but you can't simply "steal" the label "acf" without biting off much
more trouble than any possible profit which might be realized by
simply respecting time-honored conventions - much like Ahhhnuld did!

How can you steal freeware? (unless you change the name and claim
authorship)

Best regards.

You too.

 

[rtdos]

I disagree.

As well, the sort of net-anarchy you espouse can be discouraged. You
frequently choose to call those who discourage it "control freaks."
Another has compared them to terrorists a few times. What fun.

--
»Q«
"KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET"
By Senator John Ashcroft
<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm>

Just by your sig alone you yourself encourage free-wheeling and wide-ranging
debate but your message claims Vic, Andy, I and others espouse net-anarchy.
Am I missing something here?

 

[Tiger]

We were discussing the decisions to create your webring and to create
the FAQ. Both past tense. You accidentally slipped into the present
tense. HTH.

He keeps saying the faq isn't supported by the majority, as if saying
it over and over will make it true. Reminds me of my 10-yr old nephew.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Just by your sig alone you yourself encourage free-wheeling and
wide-ranging debate

No. My sig only provides a link to an opinion piece. If you want to
discuss it, there are plently of newsgroups where that would be
appropriate, but I don't mean to encourage you to. Please don't try
to start a debate about it here, in any case.

but your message claims Vic, Andy, I and others espouse
net-anarchy.

The "you" in my text above was meant to be singular, Vic only. I'm
afraid I have not read enough of your philosophy of how newsgroups
are supposed to work to characterize it.

Am I missing something here?

I don't know, since I don't really understand the linkage you seemed
to imply between my sig and my take on Vic's position. Hopefully if
you were, what I've written here has clarified things.

 

[Bebop & Rocksteady]

I would agree that a new FAQ is in order. The problem is: what do we
put in it? I suggested a very simple definition of freeware in another
thread, and it had virtually no support.

My impression is that many (not all) people want a FAQ with a lot
details, definitions, covenants, conditions, exceptions and
restrictions. They just can't agree on the details. I would not want
to try to maintain a FAQ like that, regardless of what it says.

IMO freeware is "software that can be obtained legally without
monetary payment to the software author and/or copyright holder".

That doesn't need to be a FAQ, it can be a sig. As a matter of
courtesy and information, any "conditions" (registerware, nagware,
adware, thankyouware, BeNiceToYourPetsWare, etc.) associated with the
freeware should be mentioned.

That's what I believe. IMO anything more complicated is impossible to
enforce in an un-moderated alt-NG; as we have seen. Also, I do not
believe a FAQ adopted by a simple majority is appropriate for an
un-moderated alt-NG. These NGs by their nature were designed to
facilitate free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. Forbearance and
tolerance of decent (rather than censorship) are the key words here.
That's the main reason they are un-moderated IMO. I don't think anyone
should try to change that with less than a 2/3 majority supported FAQ.
That will never happen here.

Obviously there are a lot of folks here that are not comfortable
and/or happy with free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. They want
a more focused environment with a high degree of command and control.
There is nothing wrong with that at all and I understand their
frustration in not being able to impose that kind of environment here.
An un-moderated alt-NG is just not designed for that.

Freeware Revolution
http://www.freewarerevolution.com/

--
----------------------------------------
Quantum Illusions: http://quantum.2ya.com
Pegasus Mail Support Site: http://pegasus.quantum.2ya.com
Freeware Site: http://freeware.quantum.2ya.com
DATA Solutions: http://datasolutions.quantum.2ya.com

If you truly want to contact me click the link
http://quantum.2ya.com/email.htm

 

[Mister Charlie]

says...

agreed also.

Yeah, I think so as well. Just to eliminate confusion.

 

[Mister Charlie]

I would agree that a new FAQ is in order. The problem is: what do we
put in it? I suggested a very simple definition of freeware in another
thread, and it had virtually no support.

My impression is that many (not all) people want a FAQ with a lot
details, definitions, covenants, conditions, exceptions and
restrictions. They just can't agree on the details. I would not want
to try to maintain a FAQ like that, regardless of what it says.

IMO freeware is "software that can be obtained legally without
monetary payment to the software author and/or copyright holder".

That doesn't need to be a FAQ, it can be a sig. As a matter of
courtesy and information, any "conditions" (registerware, nagware,
adware, thankyouware, BeNiceToYourPetsWare, etc.) associated with the
freeware should be mentioned.

That's what I believe. IMO anything more complicated is impossible to
enforce in an un-moderated alt-NG; as we have seen. Also, I do not
believe a FAQ adopted by a simple majority is appropriate for an
un-moderated alt-NG. These NGs by their nature were designed to
facilitate free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. Forbearance and
tolerance of decent (rather than censorship) are the key words here.
That's the main reason they are un-moderated IMO. I don't think anyone
should try to change that with less than a 2/3 majority supported FAQ.
That will never happen here.

Obviously there are a lot of folks here that are not comfortable
and/or happy with free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. They want
a more focused environment with a high degree of command and control.
There is nothing wrong with that at all and I understand their
frustration in not being able to impose that kind of environment here.
An un-moderated alt-NG is just not designed for that.

In many cases I disagree with you and your stance, but what separates
you from the usual trolls is that you do make the occasional good point
and you at least seem to want to approach the problem rather than just
attack or criticize.

I think an updated FAQ that is very simple and not like a contract or
EULA with millions of covenants and such is really what's needed. I've
seen it before where it was explained that certain wares (cracks, warez,
etc.) were verboten, which is reasonable.

Obviously the question of anything other than strictly free ware was
addressed in the old FAQ and in an update could certainly be described
as of interest to some and people should be aware of that...and as I
believe Q said, the FAQ can't be enforced but it can be encouraged.

Simple, open guidelines are all that are needed.

 

[Vic Dura]

As well, the sort of net-anarchy you espouse can be discouraged. You
frequently choose to call those who discourage it "control freaks."
Another has compared them to terrorists a few times. What fun.

Yes. I thought the "control freaks" was a nice expressive
counter-point to "trolls" which seems to be what "control-freaks" like
to call anyone that disagrees with them.

It's a matter of perspective.

 

[Vic Dura]

I agree, but if there is no new FAQ these oldtimers can continue to
peddle their old FAQ unchallenged by any newer document.
They can continue to beat newcomers over the head with that old FAQ,
in spite of the current views of the acf community.

So I think it would be a good idea to say basically what you said in
this message, and maybe complement it with the averages of the votes
just to show the current views of a number of participants in a new
faq.

In that way newcomers have more than one document to choose from, and
are encouraged to think for themselves instead of slavishly follow
some strict rules.

If you wish, feel free to incorporate anything I've written into a new
"AltFAQ". I'm sure we can find a place to post it.

 

[Vic Dura]

In many cases I disagree with you and your stance, but what separates
you from the usual trolls

I take it then that you consider me an "UNusual" troll? Can I take
that as a compliment?

 

[rtdos]

If you wish, feel free to incorporate anything I've written into a new
"AltFAQ". I'm sure we can find a place to post it.

i could always post it on my website just so my website meets acf
guidelines. )

 

[rtdos]

No. My sig only provides a link to an opinion piece. If you want to
discuss it, there are plently of newsgroups where that would be
appropriate, but I don't mean to encourage you to. Please don't try
to start a debate about it here, in any case.

The "you" in my text above was meant to be singular, Vic only. I'm
afraid I have not read enough of your philosophy of how newsgroups
are supposed to work to characterize it.

I don't know, since I don't really understand the linkage you seemed
to imply between my sig and my take on Vic's position. Hopefully if
you were, what I've written here has clarified things.

--
»Q«
"KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET"
By Senator John Ashcroft
<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm>

Point taken.

 

[status]

Sorry, but I really have to disappoint you. Taking down my
website had NOTHING to do with FAQ's, things happening in ACF or
whatever. I took my site down for strictly private and personal
reasons.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that or sound that way.

Nevertheless, I still appreciate your initiative to create a
webring for freeware-authors. I still think it is a great idea.
But when you use the name of ACF, the least thing you could do,
also for your visitors, some unfamiliar with ACF, is directing
them to a place where they can read what ACF stands for. And IMHO
the FAQ on the site of John F. is the best place to start.

I have no problem with an FAQ. but it must be updated and it must not
be maintained by Corliss. I will host an FAQ on my website but I will
not maintain it.

But, I have to be honest in this, directing those folks to the
FAQ, means that you and the freeware-authors in the webring also
take notice of the meaning of 'freeware'.

But you yourself said the FAQ is a guideline only. It is not the
charter of the acf or is it the bylaws of the acf that must be obeyed.

I hope that this doesn't discourage you from running the webring.
It gives freeware-authors a possibility to promote their programs
in an easy way. And it gives visitors the opportunity to look for
and find good 'freeware'-products. I hope you continue your
efforts, but it can also give you and others problems, when we
leave the definition of 'freeware' as stated in the FAQ. When we
do it your way, the border between what is freeware and what is
not (and that includes warez) becomes very thin. (For instance:
time-limited beta software can never be 'freeware').

hasn't discouraged me yet. in fact, i'm probably getting more support
for the webring than Corliss is for the FAQ. Go figure.

 

[Vic Dura]

i could always post it on my website just so my website meets acf
guidelines. )

That would work. I also have a website where it could be posted.

Why don't you take a crack at writting a brief AltFAQ and post it for
discussion?

At this point it might be a good idea to start a new subject, e.g.
"AltFAQ discussion" ?

 

[status]

On 29 Oct 2003 09:51:22 -0800, (e-mail address removed) ([email protected])
wrote:



My FAQ has been "updated" a number of times since it was created. You
obviously haven't been paying attention.

Regards, John.

Google it. Prove it.

 

[status]

Because by using the name, you implicitly accept and endorse the FAQ.
If you don't like the FAQ, work to change it, or start your own forum
with its own FAQ.

I endorse the group. No one said I had to endorse the FAQ.

 

[status]

The fact that they keep referring to *the* faq clearly indicates that
the problem is with John Corliss...which indicates a personal
bias...not that anyone is surprised by that...at least no one who has
been around 5th graders for any length of time.

You're wrong. I have a problem with the "non-binding" FAQ.

 

[BoB]

Yeah, I think so as well. Just to eliminate confusion.

Concur

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:39:02 -0800, "Mister Charlie"

I think an updated FAQ

I last updated it in August. What is it you want changed ?

that is very simple and not like a contract or
EULA with millions of covenants and such is really what's needed.

That's what we have.

< snip >

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/