Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!utah-gr!utah-cs!sunset.utah.edu!u-dmfloy
From: u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: R.I.P. Byte
Message-ID: <5729@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 19 Sep 88 20:25:18 GMT
References: <402@mfgfoc.UUCP> <674@proxftl.UUCP> <2596@sugar.uu.net> <5724@utah-cs.UUCP> <1529@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: u-dmfloy%sunset.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Daniel M Floyd)
Organization: University of Utah, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 40

In article <1529@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>The favorable aspect was that there was someone at InfoWorld listening at
>all. The implication being that InfoWorld staffers are a more desirable
>class of people because they pay attention to UseNet.
[quoting Dan:] 
>> What if she were fired, or died (god forbid)? Then
>> how could we be certain InfoWorld would respond?
>
>We wouldn't. But unless you buy a magazine for its name the most important
>aspect of it is who's working for it. At this point in time, Infoworld has
>(officially or no) a channel into UseNet. Byte doesn't.

I understand what is stated here. However, I must diagree. There is
a clear commitment from Sharon:

"Actually, if I were fired or quit, you'd still hear from me -- I
just wouldn't be a representative of InfoWorld any more."

But there is *no* commitment from InfoWorld to UseNet.
It is great to hear from Sharon. The implication here is that
Sharon is "...a more desirable class of [person] because [she pays] attention
to UseNet". We on the net benefit from *her* expertise with InfoWorld.
We do not benefit from InfoWorld's responsiveness to UseNet.

It is important whether or not something occurs officially. Certainly
an important aspect of a magazine is their charter, and their policies.
A magazine hires and fires to get people to accomplish these things. Thus,
the "who's working for it" is determined by other issues. I submit that
these other issues are at least as important as the who. Chief executive
officers, it is true, make policy, but that's a more restricted definition
of "who's working for it" than was being used. InfoWorld it not, at this
time commited to UseNet. The content of a magazine is determined by
"officialness".

Besides all that, I still don't think that people here on UseNet comprise
an adequate sampling of the readership of *any* particular magazine. If
we did, I'm sure we'd see some official commitment to UseNet.

Dan Floyd
8