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