Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bu-cs!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ain
From: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: some (should-be) ground-rules for submissions to comp.binaries.*
Message-ID: <3077@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 31 May 88 15:41:20 GMT
References: <2689@utastro.UUCP> <699@lakesys.UUCP> <307@spt.entity.com> <8297@dhw68k.cts.com> <5145@dcatla.UUCP>
Reply-To: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White)
Organization: PUCC Land, USA
Lines: 51

In article <5145@dcatla.UUCP> mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) writes:
>[I'm cross-posting to comp.sys.amiga since this applies to amiga binaries
>as well.]
>
>To reduce the amount of binaries on the net, and to enhance the usefulness of
>what's posted, I propose the following scoring system:
>
>	All submissions have a base score of 0.
>
>	Sources accompany submission:  +10
>	Public domain (as opposed to free copyrighted): +5
>	Binary < 20K:  +5
>	Binary < 50K:  +3 (a 10K binary has a score of +5, not +8)
>
>	Binary > 100K:  -3
>	Binary > 150K:  -5
>	Shareware:  -5
>	Demo of commercial program:  -10

   Just for the record, I AM NOT CURRENTLY DOING THIS.. that is, unless many
people from the group or the demi-gods of the net want me to.  Our official
policy is still to post what is sent to us provided it works and is ok to
post.

   A few things many are possibly not aware of though: a month or so ago, there
was *much* discussion on the moderator/backbone mailing lists about possibly
getting rid of the binaries groups all together.  This discussion seemed to
be prompted by the posting of some copyrighted software (or something like
that) to the IBM BINARIES group [see how many idiots it takes to destroy a
good thing?].  To my knowledge, nothing official has come of this.. yet.

   In view of this, perhaps it is time to start thinking of some sort of
rating system for determining *usefulness* of a binary posting (most source
is still useful as an example if nothing else).
   I, being a moderator, am in the position to enforce such a system [i'd
really rather not judge programs, but if it must be...].  Since it would
be more work for me, I'm not inclined to create such a rating system, but I
will enforce one if asked.
   Generally speaking though, everybody includes source unless they have a
very good reason not to (they want to keep control over the source to present
a more consistent product, it's a demo version of a commercial program, etc.),
so perhaps a voluntary constraint is enough.  

   So, think about it, discuss it, let me know if any changes get decided
upon.


-- Pat White   (co-moderator comp.sources/binaries.amiga)
ARPA/UUCP: j.cc.purdue.edu!ain  BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM  PHONE: (317) 743-8421
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906
["how's it feel to be living in a black hole?"... "could be worse."]