[++] SELF-DISCIPLINE: Towards better News
Bertrand Meyer
The "lapel pin" [xx] in the Subject of this message signals
adherence to SELF-DISCIPLINE , a voluntary program for quality
News discussions. For details see http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
or ftp://ftp.eiffel.com/discipline. Please do NOT post comments
on this newsgroup on this aspect of the message.
This message is about SELF-DISCIPLINE itself. (The name is an
acronym; see below.) Why is it posted on these three newsgroups?
Well, one has to start somewhere. Specifically:
- comp.lang.eiffel is the newsgroup which I read most frequently
(and has recently shown signs of being endangered by irresponsible
postings).
- comp.object corresponds to a central interest of mine.
- comp.edu is also of great interest, and its being related to
education is an additional attraction.
Given more flexibility, I would have included comp.software-eng,
comp.risks (moderator permitting), etc. But the rules stated below
prohibit postings of opinion messages to more than three groups, and
I am certainly not going to start a program by violating its own rules.
I am aware of the potential for ridicule of this whole thing, but
think it is well worth it. Laugh as you like, but PLEASE do not
respond to this message on the original newsgroup. Use a
news-oriented group - somewhere in the News hierarchy, I don't
quite know where but someone will tell me - or start
`news.discipline' (see below).
Why you should NOT respond on any of the original newsgroups is
explained in detail in the message itself. (Yes, dearest Mr. Robert
Martin, this applies to you too. Thanks.)
The message would undoubtedly have required editing, proofreading,
shortening etc. I don't really have any more time to devote to it,
so I am posting it as it is. Please accept my apologies for any typo
or deficiency - including any violations of rule 9 "Spelling and
Grammar", which may have escaped my intermittent attention.
I hope never to have to post on this topic again in my life.
(Well, perhaps once a year.)
One last comment: the ASCII version of the message is barely
adequate for understanding (it misses fonts, some indentation,
some cross-references etc.) If you have access to the World-Wide
Web or just plain FTP access and a Postscript printer or previewer,
STOP READING THIS MESSAGE RIGHT NOW and use one of the following techniques
(if you are reading News using Netscape, just click on the appropriate line):
http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
(World-Wide Web version)
ftp://ftp.eiffel.com/pub/discipline
(to download a Postscript version, compressed; note that
both US LTR and International A4 formats are available).
Thanks in advance for your attention, and most importantly for
practicing SELF-DISCIPLINE.
-- BM
====================================================================
[++]: SELF-DISCIPLINE: Towards better News
Bertrand Meyer
ISE Inc.
24 July 1995
Table of Contents
1 SUMMARY
2 WHY SELF-DISCIPLINE?
2.1 The potential of News
2.2 Previous efforts
2.3 Less is more
2.4 Quality and quantity
2.5 The topical focus
3 THE PROGRAM
3.1 What SELF-DISCIPLINE is not
3.2 The spirit of SELF-DISCIPLINE
3.3 The newsgroup
3.4 What is SELF-DISCIPLINE?
4 MESSAGE IDENTIFICATION
4.1 The lapel pin
4.2 Cleaning up responses
4.3 The SELF-DISCIPLINE label
5 DEFINITIONS
5.1 Classification 1: origin
5.2 Classification 2: tone
5.3 Notes on the classifications
6 THE RULES
Rule 1: Identification
Rule 2: Opinion breadth
Rule 3: Opinion follow-up directions
Rule 4: Opinion follow-up targets
Rule 5: Original opinion frequency
Rule 6: Opinion follow-up frequency
Rule 7: Quotes in follow-ups
Rule 8: Opinion authorship
Rule 9: Spelling and grammar
Rule 10: Standards of address
Rule 11: Response to outrageous statements
Rule 12: Resolution of rule violations
Rule 13: Target of posts to news.discipline
Rule 14: Form of posts to news.discipline
Rule 15: Use of this message
7 WILL IT WORK?
8 SPREADING THE WORD
Note: this document is copyrighted (see end).
*****
1 SUMMARY
This document describes a voluntary program, called SELF-
DISCIPLINE, of which people who post on Usenet may want to become
members if they feel that it can help the News mechanism fulfil its
extraordinary potential while avoiding the aberrations that
threaten it.
SELF-DISCIPLINE is an acronym:
Start Elevating the Level of the Field:
Democratic Initiative for Serious, Civilized, Informed,
Productive and Literate
International Network Exchanges
If you find such a long acronym corny, just ignore the
expansion and take the word SELF-DISCIPLINE for exactly what it
means.
An important request: the author asks that if you intend to
take any action on the basis of this document -- even if that
action is just to express an opinion on it -- at all you read it
twice, as he found it difficult to express his goals in a
completely sequential manner, and did not find the time to improve
it so that it would flow more naturally.
If you want to become a member of the SELF-DISCIPLINE program,
just make sure you have understood what it implies, and start
observing its rules in some of your postings. Do not make a big
fuss about it; do not post and cross-post about SELF-DISCIPLINE
itself. Just apply it quietly.
If you disapprove of the program, please keep quiet about it
too. That's the best way to let the whole thing die out.
2 WHY SELF-DISCIPLINE?
Usenet (taken in this document as a general term for news forums
available through the Internet) has exploded during the past few
years. Thousands of discussion groups are available. Are we using
this new medium properly?
2.1 The potential of News
Although many serious people admit to being "News addicts", jaded
comments are common, to the effect that "Most of what goes out
there is junk".
To add a personal note, the author of this document, who tries
to post responsibly (after having contributed his share of less
than fully thought-out messages) almost always receives, after
having posted a News message, a few e-mail notes of the form:
"Thanks for trying to bring some sanity to the debate, but I can
only offer my sympathy; with all the dimwits out there it's a lost
cause".
Perhaps it is a lost cause. Or perhaps not.
I am trying this -- the SELF-DISCIPLINE program -- because I
think that this conventional wisdom can be disproved. Because I
would like to see really top people post on Usenet. (Today they
most often don't, because they know that Joe Sixpack has more time
than Don Knuth, can as a result post many more messages, and can
try to make Don Knuth look foolish.) Because I think the major
problem facing the News community is a glut of messages, and that
some of us, by controlling our impulses to shoot before we think,
can help correct that problem. Because once in a while there is a
true gem, and there could be more gems if there was a better way to
get past the junk.
Because I would like to disprove the bleak assessment of
Usenet that, according to a recent correspondent , Cliff Stoll
presents in his book Snake Oil. (I have not read that book,
although I did see a line about it in Newsweek -- which I guess by
Usenet standards gives me expert status, so that I can start
posting definitive opinions all around about it .)
In a word: because I think that the News mechanism has the
potential -- if we only handle it with care -- of becoming an
extraordinarily useful tool for exchanges and progress.
2.2 Previous efforts
Almost since "The Net" has existed some people have tried to codify
"Netiquette". Judging from the results, their work has been a
dismal failure. One of the most respected of these arbiters of good
taste, Gene Spafford, who for many years maintained the guide for
new users, quit in disgust a few years ago, sending out a message
stating how disappointed he was with the universal contempt for the
most basic rules of sane discourse.
But if one examines these efforts, it will not be hard to
understand why they could not succeed. They were all reasonable and
well-intentioned, but for all the respect, gratitude and admiration
that their authors deserve, they suffered from fundamental
deficiencies that with hindsight explain why they were doomed:
- They were a bit boy-scoutish in their spirit. They assumed
that everyone is good. Everyone is not good.
- They told people to be good. That is not very useful. We
should take a lead or two from the legal and political
professions. No law that I know says that one must be good.
Laws define what is permissible, usually by defining what is
not permissible.
- Perhaps worst of all, they made little allowance for
imperfection. A stable system must provide corrective
mechanisms for deviations. With the traditional "Beginner's
Guide to Netiquette", it suffices that one person violate the
canons of common sense -- which such Guides codify -- for the
whole thing to break down. Well, one person is going to
violate the canon, and pretty soon.
2.3 Less is more
The SELF-DISCIPLINE program owes much to these earlier efforts, but
tries to overcome their limitations. The key realization was that
you can achieve more, perhaps much more, by being less ambitious --
perhaps much less.
In particular:
- SELF-DISCIPLINE does not try to codify all Usenet behavior.
It only focuses on behavior that can be disruptive to the
system.
- SELF-DISCIPLINE accepts people as they are. People will get
angry and hurl insults at each other. Gladstone and Disraeli
insulted each other copiously decade after decade, and they
are remembered as great statesmen. Why should we pretend that
Usenet correspondents will always be nice (or that they will
always do right)? We can, however, limit nasty consequences.
- SELF-DISCIPLINE focuses on form rather than content. It is
very difficult to codify what people put in messages, for at
least two reasons: first, it restrains freedom of expression;
second, it is very hard to decide cases objectively -- for
example, whether a certain comment is an insult or merely an
expression of strong dissent. It is much easier to specify
measurable factors, such as number of times that someone may
post on a certain topic. A few of the rules below affect
content (rules 8, 10, 11). but most affect form.
- Finally, SELF-DISCIPLINE does not assume that everyone will
apply its rules. In fact, I expect that even if the program is
successful its members will for a long time, probably forever,
remain a minority. So SELF-DISCIPLINE does not impose anything
on anyone: only those who agree with it need be concerned.
Others can just ignore the program; it will not affect them.
No member of the program will taunt them because they are not
in it (that, in fact, would be against the rules). The message
from SELF-DISCIPLINE members to others is: "We think we are
doing right and you are welcome to join the club, but if you
don't, fine, just continue doing what you think is best. The
only risk you incur is that some of us -- who are particularly
busy, or feel particularly strongly about the program -- might
pay more attention to fellow members' postings than to yours".
2.4 Quality and quantity
The principal focus of SELF-DISCIPLINE (although not the only one)
has already been hinted at: volume of exchanges.
We cannot expect that every posting be of top quality. But we
can try to stop the diarrhea that so often characterizes exchanges.
SELF-DISCIPLINE particularly focuses on those endless, and
endlessly boring, sequences of answers and counter-answers on a
single topic, which run for weeks or months, defying all "ENOUGH
NOW, PLEASE GO AWAY!" pleas by concerned bystanders.
By defining some purely quantitative criteria, SELF-DISCIPLINE
can help its members behave themselves, and, I hope, produce a
dramatic improvement of the overall quality of technical exchanges.
2.5 The topical focus
"Technical exchanges" were just mentioned as the principal concern.
SELF-DISCIPLINE is indeed intended for technical newsgroups,
although it might spread to recreational groups. The impetus for
SELF-DISCIPLINE is to make a better use of News for professional
purposes.
If anyone wants to apply the same idea to non-professional
discussions, fine, but that is not what this document is about.
3 THE PROGRAM
With this analysis and rationale in mind, it is time now to define
what SELF-DISCIPLINE is. As is so often the case, it will be
convenient to start by listing a few things that it is not.
3.1 What SELF-DISCIPLINE is not
The following negative characterizations will, I hope, help avoid
possible confusions.
SELF-DISCIPLINE is not a committee. No one is in charge,
neither the author of this message (thanks, but no thanks) nor
anyone else. The program, like the Internet itself, is entirely
self-regulated.
SELF-DISCIPLINE is not a newsgroup. It potentially applies
across all newsgroups (although its major focus, as explained
above, is technical groups). Note, however, that if the program
succeeds it will have a newsgroup devoted to it, news.discipline,
whose purpose will be discussed below. If the program really
succeeds, news.discipline will have very little traffic. Ideally it
should have none -- meaning there are no violations.
SELF-DISCIPLINE is not an attempt to regulate Usenet. That
would be foolish and meaningless; and no one, and certainly not the
author, has the authority to contemplate such a thing, let alone
undertake it. SELF-DISCIPLINE is a voluntary program for people who
share a taste for a certain style of exchanges (the SCIPLI style:
Serious, Civilized, Informed, Productive, and Literate) with the
understanding that this style will only affect a subset of Internet
exchanges.
3.2 The spirit of SELF-DISCIPLINE
What can make SELF-DISCIPLINE successful is the best feature of the
Internet: the extraordinary self-regulatory nature of the medium.
The shameful abuses of Usenet attract everyone's attention:
the immigration lawyer who posts his junk ads to two thousand
groups, the Nazi crank who posts his hate mail. We are all
outraged, as well we should be. But just as remarkable is how many
smaller abuses get corrected: the usually decent person who sends
out an inappropriate message (who has never done so?) and gets
corrected, quietly or loudly, privately or publicly, becoming more
careful as he learns the tricks and rewards of the exercise. Unlike
the approaches discussed earlier, SELF-DISCIPLINE does not assume
that everyone will behave well all the time. The program actually
takes it for granted that people will misbehave at least once in a
while (especially when they are learning), and tries to provide
self-regulation mechanisms to recover from such incidents.
(A note of style, which has nothing to do with the rest of
this message but is made necessary by the context of the time: in
the preceding paragraph and a few more cases below I use the
English word "he" in its centuries-old role as a sexless
abbreviation for "he or she". It's a stylistic convention, nothing
else.)
SELF-DISCIPLINE, as already noted, is voluntary. Not everyone
will become a member. Being a member is a little like wearing a
lapel pin, perhaps a small badge -- not even a bumper sticker (that
would already be a little on the garish side). You just identify
yourself discreetly as someone who cares about the quality of
network exchanges; you don't make a big fuss, just try to follow
the rules, and maybe wink once in a while at a fellow member to
signal your appreciation of a kindred spirit.
3.3 The newsgroup
In its full swing, SELF-DISCIPLINE assumes the existence of a
newsgroup, called news.discipline. This newsgroup will be devoted
to discussions on SELF-DISCIPLINE itself, and possible violations
of the rules by people who purport to be members and have not
compiled with earlier, private criticism.
The news.discipline group is a regulatory mechanism. One of
its purposes is to ensure that SELF-DISCIPLINE is not causing any
increased traffic on other newsgroups. In fact, the rules below
state very clearly that to post any discussion whatsoever of SELF-
DISCIPLINE on a topical newsgroup is a flagrant violation of the
program.
The program can start, and prosper for a while, without
news.discipline being in place. If it is successful, someone should
take the initiative of creating the newsgroup. I hope there will be
a volunteer. I certainly won't do it, as I do not have the time,
but I will be glad to help. Please contact me if you want to
volunteer (if only to make sure that if several people do they can
work at it together).
3.4 What is SELF-DISCIPLINE?
What then does it mean to become a member of SELF-DISCIPLINE? Only
three things: You decide to become a member. (You are entirely
responsible for that. No one else will coopt you, although people
may of course suggest that you join; and you do not need to ask for
anyone else's approval.)
You have read the present document from back to back at least twice
(and read it again once every two years or so, as the rules may
evolve slightly).
In any of your postings that identifies you as a SELF-DISCIPLINE
member, you follow the 15 rules given below. (Note that even if you
are a member it is perfectly acceptable to post messages that do
not identify you as such, and hence are not bond by the rules.)
That's all.
4 MESSAGE IDENTIFICATION
From now on we will say that a News posting is "a SELF-DISCIPLINE
post" if it identifies its author as being a member of the program.
As just noted, not all messages emanating from program members need
to be SELF-DISCIPLINE posts.
4.1 The lapel pin
Every News message has a Subject header. (Some News program let you
get away without one, but that is not advised and in fact quite
infrequent.)
As part of the rules given below, a SELF-DISCIPLINE post will
have a Subject header beginning with
[xx]
where xx is a two-character code identifying the nature of the
message. For example an "opinion post" (as defined below) will have
a subject message beginning with [++].
This rather discrete indication is the metaphorical "lapel
pin" discussed earlier.
4.2 Cleaning up responses
The lapel pin convention raises a small technical problem. Every
News program will allow you to post a message that is a "follow-up"
to a preceding one; the follow up will have a Subject header of the
form Re: original, where original is the original's Subject header.
So a response to a SELF-DISCIPLINE message will have the [xx] code
appear after the Re:. For example if you post a message with the
Subject header
[++] I have demonstrated that the earth is flat
will trigger responses of the form
Re: [++] I have demonstrated that the earth is flat
The presence of such a lapel pin after Re: bears no indication
as to the nature of the follow-up message. If the responder is also
a SELF-DISCIPLINE member, he should add his own mark, for example
[++] Re: [++] I have demonstrated that the earth is flat
or
[..]Re: [++] I have demonstrated that the earth is flat
where "..", as explained below, denotes an "information post".
Note that this causes a small nuisance, as some News software
does not deal very well with responses in which the Re: line has
been edited. The problem, however, should not be too bad. SELF-
DISCIPLINE members should remove any lapel pin appearing after the
Re: to avoid accumulating codes and confusing News readers. This is
not a formal rule (since in some cases you might want to remind
your readers of the original's classification, for example if the
response's one is different) but a strongly recommended convention.
If the program succeeds, one may hope that future News
programs will automatically remove any lapel pin appearing after
Re: in a response. This is a trivial upgrade, so I hope that some
News program authors are reading this!
4.3 The SELF-DISCIPLINE label
In addition to the lapel pin, the rules require any SELF-DISCIPLINE
message to include a short label message. (Do not confuse the label
and the lapel!) This is an explanation, of which the current
version reads like this:
The "lapel pin" [xx] in the Subject of this message signals
adherence to SELF-DISCIPLINE , a voluntary program for quality
News discussions. For details see http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
or ftp://ftp.eiffel.com/discipline. Please do NOT post comments
on this newsgroup on this aspect of the message.
This message might change somehow in the future. (For one
thing I would like to make it shorter, although I don't see how.)
It should normally appear at the end of the message in order not to
detract from the message's actual topic. It is also possible to put
it at the beginning, especially during the initial period, as we
want to draw some attention, albeit discreetly, to the program.
5 DEFINITIONS
The rules given in the next section will rely on a few definitions.
In particular, we must classify News postings (hereafter just
called "posts") according to two separate criteria: origin and
tone.
5.1 Classification 1: origin
Every post is one of the following:
O1 Original post: post which is not a response or follow-up to
a previous post.
O2 Response post: a response or follow-up to a previous post.
5.2 Classification 2: tone
Every post is one of the following (each given with its
corresponding lapel pin):
T1 Opinion post: expresses the author's view on some topic
(pin: [++]).
T2 Correction post: corrects an error or opinion expressed by
an earlier post by the same author (pin: [--]).
T3 Query post: requests information on some topic or answers
to a "how to" or "what is" question (pin: [??]).
T4 Information post: announcing some information, event or
product (pin: [**] if the target of the information is
available for free, [$$] if it is available for a fee).
In addition, the special lapel pin [!!] and the corresponding
category (news.discipline protest) may be used in exceptional
cases; see rule 13.
5.3 Notes on the classifications
The Origin and Tone classifications are orthogonal, e.g. you may
have an original opinion post, a response information post etc.
For a response post (O2 according to Origin), the Tone
classification may be different from the Tone classification of the
original message. For example one may have an opinion response to
an information post, or conversely.
In case T4 (information post), the difference between [**] and
[$$] is not related to whether the originator is "non-profit" or
"commercial", but to whether the object of the announcement is free
or for a fee. So for example a paying conference from a non-profit
organization is [$$], whereas a free product from a commercial
organization is [**]. This is quite important.
Finally you may have noted the absence of any "joke" category.
A good joke does not need to be advertized as such. (For the same
reason, I never use the dreadful "smiley". Voltaire could do
without the smiley; Bernard Shaw could do without smiley; we should
be able to do without the smiley, or else we must not be very
funny. STOP THE SMILEY before it kills another joke. This is a
personal pet peeve, not a rule of SELF-DISCIPLINE!)
6 THE RULES
Here now are the rules that SELF-DISCIPLINE members should observe
for their SELF-DISCIPLINE posts. In this section the phrase "every
post shall..." means "every SELF-DISCIPLINE post shall...", since
the program does not define any rule for other posts. Similarly,
the phrase "every poster shall ..." means "every SELF-DISCIPLINE
member, in his SELF-DISCIPLINE posts, shall ..."
Rule 1: Identification
RULE:
Every post shall be identified by a "lapel pin" as described
in section 4.1 and a "label" as described in section 4.3.
Rationale: this is what defines a SELF-DISCIPLINE post,
discreetly but clearly. It is enough to intrigue readers --
especially if they like the style of the message -- and make them
want to become members too.
Rule 2: Opinion breadth
RULE:
No opinion post shall be posted on more than three newsgroups.
Rationale:
Opinion posts tend to generate lots of responses. Cross
posting them to many groups produce exponential netnoise.
Comment: in most cases, an opinion post should be posted to
exactly one group. The rule is a little more tolerant, for people
who think that the whole world should hear what they have to say,
but one should be the rule, two or three the exception.
Rule 3: Opinion follow-up directions
RULE:
Every opinion post, if posted on more than one newsgroup,
shall include a "follow-up to" specification listing a single
of these groups for follow-up.
Rationale:
Avoiding netnoise.
Rule 4: Opinion follow-up targets
RULE:
Any response to an opinion post shall be posted only to the
follow-up group, except if the response is to a post involving
the poster explicitly, in which case he may post at most one
response to all the original groups, with a follow-up
indication as per the rule 3.
Rationale: avoiding netnoise.
Rule 5: Original opinion frequency
RULE:
No poster shall post more than one original opinion per week
in newsgroups belonging to any primary news classification
(comp, sci etc.).
Rationale: even if you are full of ideas about all kinds of
subjects, you should give the world time to digest them. It is
unlikely that any of your original opinions will be crucial enough
that it can't wait for a week.
Comment: to allow for people who have plenty of original
opinions on all kinds of different topics -- such as object-
oriented programming, Japanese baseball leagues, Monteverdi operas
and Tennessee gubernatorial races -- the "no-more-than-one-per-
week" rule only applies within one of the principal top-level
branches of the News hierarchy.
Rule 6: Opinion follow-up frequency
RULE:
No poster shall post more than one opinion response per
forty-eight hours on any given topic or thread.
Rationale: avoiding those dreary endless threads, where a few
people go on and on and on and on and on for weeks or months. Note
that changing the Subject header to bypass the rule is a violation
of the rule, unless the change of topic is substantial.
Comment: A good practical limit is two opinion responses at
most during the first week, and at most one per week thereafter.
The rule is a bit more tolerant to allow for cases in which the
discussion heats up and you don't want to wait too long to respond.
Another comment: It is often a good idea to respond to several
messages together. This is much more effective than endless little
person-to-person threads. In such a global response, make sure to
observe the next rule.
Rule 7: Quotes in follow-ups
RULE:
In any follow-up post, quotations of other correspondents'
message shall be limited to the strict minimum necessary to
understand the respondent's own points. Every effort shall be
made to identify precisely and unambiguously who wrote what,
especially in cascaded responses.
Rationale: it is extremely irritating, and a waste of time, to
see a new message that begins or ends with a huge quotation of
another (especially if you have read the original). One should not
just rely on News software's ability to quote extensively, but edit
the original down to the bare essentials. This takes one person a
few minutes, and may save thousands of people lots of aggravation.
As to the second point of the rule, confusions occur all the
time as to who said what; one is never too pedantic about
identification.
Rule 8: Opinion authorship
RULE:
No one shall post an opinion message (original or follow-up)
who is not a professional of the underlying domain, with at
least two years' experience on the topic discussed.
Rationale: it is absolutely unacceptable to see people posting
opinions on technical topics about which they have no qualification
to inflict such an opinion on thousands of innocent readers. This
is like Joe Sixpack telling Don Knuth on CNN that bubble sort is
better than Quicksort. This phenomenon is one of the worst dangers
threatening the viability of Usenet: incompetent (or semi-
competent) folks shamelessly expressing their views about anything
and anyone -- and nice, competent people encouraging them to
continue in the name of free expression. Promoting or just
accepting this is the best way to keep serious people away from the
Net.
Comment: this is not an elitist rule; it is a survival rule.
Non-specialists are welcome to participate, and to post messages of
a "tone" other than "opinion" -- requests for clarification, for
example (in the same way that a brave undergraduate may ask a
question at the end of a seminar by Don Knuth). But, please, do not
post an opinion on a professional topic of which you are not a
specialist. And if you are a specialist and see such a post, do not
applaud the poor soul! (By the way, if you are not in computing
science, you may by now wonder who in the world is this Don Knuth.
Well, you probably guessed anyway: he is one of the most famous
scholars in the field, a living legend.)
Other comment: this is one of the few rules that have to do
with content rather than form, and whose observance is hard to
measure (who decides who is an experimented professional?). So it
is hard to enforce. But it provides a way for chastising (gently
and privately, at least to start) someone who claims to be a SELF-
DISCIPLINE member but clearly does not know what he is so
vehemently posting about.
Yet another comment: to understand this rule, remember that
SELF-DISCIPLINE is primarily meant for technical newsgroups used by
professionals for professional purposes. It would be more debatable
for groups devoted to the discussion of recreational, cultural,
social or political questions. (Imagine for a second that we
require people to be competent before publicly expressing political
opinions!)
Rule 9: Spelling and grammar
RULE:
All posts shall be checked by their authors, before posting,
for spelling and grammar. Members of SELF-DISCIPLINE shall,
however, refrain from making pejorative comments about
mistakes made in these areas by other people, except if
relevant to the theme of the discussion (or to make a harmless
humorous remark).
Rationale: being careful about these aspects helps the ELF
part ("Elevate the Level of the Field). But if mistake do get in we
don't want to waste any time on this aspect.
Comment: there are plenty of spell checkers around. Being a
non-native speaker does not fundamentally affect the issue,
although readers will of course be even more tolerant in that case.
Rule 10: Standards of address
RULE:
With the possible exception of posts to news.discipline (see
rule 11), no post shall make any representation as to the
moral qualities of other posters. This rule, however, shall
not be construed as preventing the frank and open exchange of
arguments and the expression of criticism and disagreement.
Rationale: we want to promote some mutual respect without
stifling debate. An example of resolution of the opposition between
the two sentences of this rule is the following:
- "That statement by Mr. XYZ is a lie", although not
desirable, is within the policy.
- "Mr. XYZ is a liar" is not permissible.
Rule 11: Response to outrageous statements
RULE:
With the possible exception of posts to news.discipline (see
rule 11), a poster who responds to a statement that he
considers outrageous shall do so in a non-outrageous manner.
Rationale: keeping one's head cool, and serving as a good
example to others.
Comment: it is often a good idea, before posting a strongly
worded message, to let a night pass.
Rule 12: Resolution of rule violations
RULE:
If a SELF-DISCIPLINE member sees a post that is marked as
emanating from a SELF-DISCIPLINE member and appears to violate
one the rules in a way that disturbs him, he will contact the
other member privately to raise the issue.
If the complaining member feels that he is unable to resolve
the issue and that it is serious enough to warrant public
discussion, he may raise the matter of the original poster's
behavior, but only on news.discipline. If felt necessary, it
is permitted to post on the original newsgroup a single
message of the form:
I consider that a recent post on [theme] by [identification of
original poster] is not compatible with its presentation as
emanating from a SELF-DISCIPLINE poster, and have raised the issue
on news.discipline. Direct any follow-ups to news.discipline.
Rationale: providing a forum for discussing rule violations,
without messing up the original newsgroup.
Additional comment: even if the complaining member is "unable
to resolve the issue", he should seriously consider whether the
matter is "serious enough to warrant public discussions". In many
cases it is preferable to forget the whole thing. Note that
"resolving the issue" does not mean forcing the other person to
post a retraction or apology. If that person accepts that the
incriminated message was not quite appropriate, and agrees to be
more careful in the future, that is usually enough. There is no
need to force people into public penance, and, as usual, the less
noise we generate the better.
Rule 13: Target of posts to news.discipline
RULE:
Posts to news.discipline shall only concern the behavior of
posters who present themselves as SELF-DISCIPLINE members.
Rationale: news.discipline is only meant for discussions of
possibly inadequate posts whose authors claim they have observed
the rules of SELF-DISCIPLINE. It is not a general forum for
discussing News, Netiquette, cranks, hate messages etc. Under no
circumstance should it be used to bother or criticize people who do
not claim adherence to SELF-DISCIPLINE.
Rule 14: Form of posts to news.discipline
RULE:
All posts to news.discipline shall follow rules 1 to 6. They
shall normally follow rules 10 and 11 too. However, a poster
who finds that a SELF-DISCIPLINE member's attitude repeatedly
unacceptable may violate rules 10 or 11 or or both, but only
if he uses the label pin [!!] as the category mark for the
message and continues to follow rules 1 to 6.
Rationale: there needs to be some way of reacting very
strongly if someone outrageously violates the rules while
presenting himself as a bona fide member of the program. The
"protest" label pin [!!] is to be reserved for this purpose.
Although such cases should be extremely rare, we are never immune
to gross, unethical violations.
Rule 15: Use of this message
RULE:
A SELF-DISCIPLINE member may post a copy of this message to a
technical newsgroup if he feels that it will help improve the
quality of the exchanges on that group, but only if he has
serious reason to think that no such post has been made on the
chosen newsgroup during the preceding twelve months. No SELF-
DISCIPLINE member may ever post comments on this message on a
technical newsgroup.
Note: "Technical newsgroup" in this rule means any newsgroup
other than those whose topic is News per se (such as
news.discipline).
Rationale: A little propaganda helps, but in keeping with the
spirit of the program it should remain modest. Once a year is an
absolute boundary. In fact there should not be any need to post the
message twice on any given newsgroup -- either SELF-DISCIPLINE is
compatible with the spirit of the group and it will catch on, or
it's a lost cause for that group.
As for comments on this message, they should under no
circumstance be posted outside of news.discipline and other groups
devoted to discussion of News. To post comments on a technical
newsgroup, and hence add noise, would be a mockery of this whole
effort -- and an insult to its author, who is trying to limit
netnoise, not be responsible for increasing it.
7 WILL IT WORK?
WIll it work? I do not know. But it is fair to state what I would
view as success:
- If within a few months 10% of the posts on 10 newsgroups
mention SELF-DISCIPLINE, then the program may be considered
successful (i.e. it will not die easily).
- If 30% of the posts on 30 newsgroups mention SELF-
DISCIPLINE, the program may be said to have succeded far
beyond the original hope.
If any of these thresholds is reached, this will be an
encouragement to try other self-regulatory, voluntary mechanisms. I
have two such ideas, which I will keep in reserve for the moment.
8 SPREADING THE WORD
The best way to spread this program is to start using it in your
posts. If other people find it interesting, they will join too. As
noted (see rule 15), you may repost the message on other newsgroups
if you feel that will help -- provided you make sure no one else
has already done it in the past year.
One final note: please, please, please, do not post comments
on this message on technical newsgroups. If you wish to discuss it,
then you should either:
- Send messages to the author (but note that although I
usually try to respond to e-mail including from strangers, in
this case I make no such promise since I probably won't have
the time).
- Post messages to a group devoted to News (possibly telling
me about it so that I can subscribe).
Finally, if this does catch on someone should take the
initiative of creating the group news.discipline.
Copyright notice: this message is copyright Bertrand Meyer,
1995. Distribution by electronic mail on the Internet, and posting
on Usenet newsgroups, is permitted provided the message is
reproduced in its entirety, including this notice. Any other use or
publication (e.g. as part of a book or of an electronic
publication) requires the author's permission (any reasonable
request will be granted).
Disclaimer: this message is the responsibility of its author
and does not represent any opinion or commitment of Interactive
Software Engineering Inc.
--
Bertrand Meyer, ISE Inc., Santa Barbara
805-685-1006, fax 805-685-6869, <bert...@eiffel.com>
Web home page: http://www.eiffel.com
ftp://eiffel.com
Robert Martin..
>This message is about SELF-DISCIPLINE itself.
[... and later]
>Why you should NOT respond on any of the original newsgroups is
>explained in detail in the message itself. (Yes, dearest Mr. Robert
>Martin, this applies to you too. Thanks.)
It is, of course, quite unfair to mention a man's name in a public
forum and then request that he not respond in the same forum.
I am not quite sure why Dr. Meyer has singled me out in this otherwise laudable
message. However it probably has something to do with an article that I posted
a few weeks ago. Interestingly enough, that article was about another case
in which Dr. Meyer singled out certain people. In that case it was "C hackers".
In his otherwise excellent book, "Object Success" (Which I strongly recommend),
Dr. Meyer recommends to managers that they "Beware of C hackers" as opposed to
other kinds of hackers. In my article I suggested that this is a form of
biggotry, since it identifies a class of people and recommends negative action
for that entire class; irrespective of the individual.
If anyone would like a copy of that article, send me email, and I will be
happy to forward it on to you. If there is enough interest I will repost
it.
--
Robert Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor Assoc.| rma...@oma.com | OOA/D, C++, Advanced OO
2080 Cranbrook Rd. | Tel: (708) 918-1004 | Mgt. Overview of OOT
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 | Development Contracts.
Robert Martin..
problems with it. The first is that the proposal itself gives us
no way to discuss it. It states that we must use some 'other' news
group, but does not specify which one. I consider this unfair since
I would like my responses to be visible to the same audience who
saw the original post.
I like the idea of the lapel pin as a flag to identify people who
are conforming to some 'code of net behavior'. However, if the
proposal reaches its success goals of 30% and 30 newsgroups, I think
that net.discipline will be overwhelmed and be essentially useless.
Rather than using a newsgroup for [!!] posts, I think that they
should be handled by email. If a [xx] poster gets enough email from
other [xx] posters, he will get the idea.
Also, I have a problem with the "frequency" limitations. This is
a restriction that *I* am not willing to live with. And thus I am
excluded from using the lapel pin. There are several of us
who have made the time in our professional lives to post somewhat
prolifically. It seems a shame that we should be excluded from
a program that is designed to elevate the level of discussion on
the net.
Finally, my most significant complaint. I think that the [$$]
lapel pin is a VERY bad idea. It not only opens the door to
commercial advertizers, but also throws out the red carpet for
them since they can, by their [$$] lapel pin, declare themselves
to be members of the elite group that elevates the level of
discussion on the net.
So prepare for hundreds and hundreds of: "[$$] SPECIAL PROMOTION
SALE OF THE CENTURY" posts. net.discipline will never be able
to deal with these.
Igor Chudov @ home
or bad is another question.
--
- Igor. (My opinions only) http://www.galstar.com/~ichudov/index.html
For public PGP key, finger me or send email with Subject "send pgp key"
Bertrand Meyer
the first time around. After all the D stands for Democratic
and others must be able to voice their views.
(2) I still maintain, however, that it is improper to discuss it
in comp.lang.eiffel etc. Please stop. The point is not to stifle
discussion but to avoid polluting technical groups. For that reason
I will abstain from responding to RM's comment about [$$] and other
properties of SELF-DISCIPLINE.
(3) Here, in response to RM's complaint, is a short-term solution
for anyone such as him who absolutely wants to have input now.
If you are in this category send me a note and I will add you to
a mailing list, <disci...@eiffel.com>,
which will be established 2 minutes after I post this message,
and is open for anyone to post to. To subscribe send your request
not to the list but to <disciplin...@eiffel.com> (that's me).
The list is meant as a temporary substitute for the newsgroup
news.discipline until it gets created. I have already included
Mr. Martin in it. It does provide an outlet without adding
meta-discussions to technical groups.
(4) I have shortened the "label" to make it more discreet (see below).
Two and a half lines are better than four! I don't think it can get any
shorter.
Thanks for the response to this initiative. Please direct any follow-ups
to <disci...@eiffel.com>.
The [++] lapel pin in the header marks adherence to the SELF-DISCIPLINE
program for quality News exchanges. See http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
or ftp://eiffel.com/pub/discipline.
Jerry Fitzpatrick
of your article with the Smiley tattoo under the following conditions:
1) You post a lengthy, pedantic article regarding
behavioral ethics
2) Your article pleads with readers *not* to respond
in the same newsgroup
3) Your article singles out one or more individuals
for derision, then denounces personal attacks
4) For any reason whatsoever
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
--
Jerry Fitzpatrick Consulting and Training for
Red Mountain Corporation Software Architecture and Quality
1795 N. Fry Rd, Suite 329 (including C / C++ / OOA / OOD)
Katy Texas USA 77449 Phone/Fax: 713-578-8174
Greg Sanders
Bertrand Meyer <bert...@eiffel.com> wrote:
>(2) I still maintain, however, that it is improper to discuss it
>in comp.lang.eiffel etc. Please stop. The point is not to stifle
>discussion but to avoid polluting technical groups. For that reason
>I will abstain from responding to RM's comment about [$$] and other
>properties of SELF-DISCIPLINE.
Who's posting? Why, looks like Dr. Meyer to me. A man in dire need of
a kill file to spare him from reading anything other than comp.lang.eiffel
As regards the goal, I think it's laudable. As regards the proposal,
I think it's reprehensible. As regards taking the discussion elsewhere,
I disapprove. If it's worth subjecting us all to the proposal in the first
place, it's worth discussing here, and you're basically getting what you
deserve for proposing this. My 0.1 cents worth.
-- Greg
Jerry Fitzpatrick
(Matt Atterbury) writes:
>
>I am getting heartily sick of this bickering between two >people
>with so much in common and with so much signal (opposed to noise)
>to contribute.
I know what you mean, although I think Dr. Meyer is proposing a control
system (of sorts) for everyone using the technical newsgroups. This is
why I've suggested that these types of articles use the Smiley tattoo
(please refer to my previous posting).
Igor Chudov @ home
* As a service to newsgroup readers, I propose that you preface the title
* of your article with the Smiley tattoo under the following conditions:
* 1) You post a lengthy, pedantic article regarding
* behavioral ethics
* 2) Your article pleads with readers *not* to respond
* in the same newsgroup
* 3) Your article singles out one or more individuals
* for derision, then denounces personal attacks
* 4) For any reason whatsoever
* Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
* --
* Jerry Fitzpatrick Consulting and Training for
* Red Mountain Corporation Software Architecture and Quality
* 1795 N. Fry Rd, Suite 329 (including C / C++ / OOA / OOD)
* Katy Texas USA 77449 Phone/Fax: 713-578-8174
A C++ programmer from Texas just can't behave in any other way! :)
Matt Atterbury
I am getting heartily sick of this bickering between two people
with so much in common and with so much signal (opposed to noise)
to contribute.
m.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Atterbury [ma...@technix.com.au] TechNIX Consulting Group International
UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!ma...@technix.com.au "klaatu barada nikto"
ARPA: ...!uunet!murtoa!technix.com.au!matt "consider this a divorce"
or: matt%technix...@uunet.UU.NET "life? don't talk to me about life!"
Copyright (c) 1995, not to be transmitted over the Microsoft Network
claudia...@wiesbaden.netsurf.de
Why not post replies here, since the original message was posted here
and has obviously nothing to do with OO) ?
To keep matters short: I fully agree with Igor Chudov
(see some messages before).
Claudia Piemont
Jim Fleming
says...
>
>(1) Robert Martin is right that the program cannot be perfect
>the first time around. After all the D stands for Democratic
>and others must be able to voice their views.
>
>in comp.lang.eiffel etc. Please stop. The point is not to stifle
>discussion but to avoid polluting technical groups. For that reason
>I will abstain from responding to RM's comment about [$$] and other
>properties of SELF-DISCIPLINE.
>
>for anyone such as him who absolutely wants to have input now.
>If you are in this category send me a note and I will add you to
>a mailing list, <disci...@eiffel.com>,
>which will be established 2 minutes after I post this message,
>and is open for anyone to post to. To subscribe send your request
>not to the list but to <disciplin...@eiffel.com> (that's me).
>The list is meant as a temporary substitute for the newsgroup
>news.discipline until it gets created. I have already included
>Mr. Martin in it. It does provide an outlet without adding
>meta-discussions to technical groups.
>
>(4) I have shortened the "label" to make it more discreet (see below).
>Two and a half lines are better than four! I don't think it can get any
>shorter.
>
>Thanks for the response to this initiative. Please direct any follow-ups
>to <disci...@eiffel.com>.
>
> The [++] lapel pin in the header marks adherence to the
SELF-DISCIPLINE
> program for quality News exchanges. See
http://www.eiffel.com/discipline
> or ftp://eiffel.com/pub/discipline.
>
>Bertrand Meyer, ISE Inc., Santa Barbara
>805-685-1006, fax 805-685-6869, <bert...@eiffel.com>
>Web home page: http://www.eiffel.com
>ftp://eiffel.com
>
In my opinion...this should be discussed in...
alt.culture.usenet
and possibly, alt.culture.internet
Also, I would like to note for the record that the program does not
seem to address the serious problem of postings being cancelled by
individuals and cancelbots...
...again, in my opinion, if you want to do soemthing to help ensure
that the net (and Usenet) continue to be a viable vehicle for human
exchange of information, then I suggest that you work something into
your policies and procedures that allow people to more easily detect
when their messages are being cancelled or modified on the all or part
of the net...
...recently, one of the leaders of the C++ community called for people
to devise ways to remove with me...this has resulted in very serious
violations of the law as well as human rights...in some cases, these
violations originated in foreign countries which seem to promote this
type of activity...
...if you do anything with your SELF-DISCIPLINE program, start by
upholding the Constitution of the United States...then continue by
DISCOURAGING people from breaking the law...(such as jamming phone
lines with obscene calls)...
...the Usenet culture seems to have developed an attitude where leaders
of the field are beyond the law...I would hope that wearing a lapel
pin will not give people the false impression that they are now abiding
by some new Cyberspace law, while breaking other laws which have been
proven over time...
...while I share you concern that many of the "big names" in the field
do not post to Usenet, I feel that the reasons why they do not are
tied to the fact that they are big names...it is likely that they made
their mark via books, papers, conferences, teaching, business leadership,
etc...because these people have demonstrated that they are adept at
working within those systems, it does not follow that they would be
able to survive in the Usenet environment...in some cases, I can show
you examples where big names died on the net after 3 or 4 postings
because their egos could not deal with the fact that "Joe Beer-Can"
was allowed to address them...In my opinion, those people do not
belong on Usenet and Usenet should not be changed to accommodate their
parochial approach to communication...
--
Jim Fleming /|\ Unir Corporation Unir Technology, Inc.
j...@tiger.bytes.com / | \ One Naperville Plaza 184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I / | \ Naperville, IL 60563 Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola |____|___\ 1-708-505-5801 1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX) 1-708-305-0600
\__/-------\__/ http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|
Jim Fleming
>
>Having read Dr. Meyer's proposal rather carefully, I have some
>problems with it. The first is that the proposal itself gives us
>no way to discuss it. It states that we must use some 'other' news
>group, but does not specify which one. I consider this unfair since
>I would like my responses to be visible to the same audience who
>saw the original post.
>
I believe that you should be able to discuss it in any newsgroup
that you desire and will support your U.S. Constitutional right to
do so...
...I think that I understand what Dr. Meyer was trying to acheive
by limiting the response...but the U.S. Constitution must not be
abandoned...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>I like the idea of the lapel pin as a flag to identify people who
>are conforming to some 'code of net behavior'. However, if the
>proposal reaches its success goals of 30% and 30 newsgroups, I think
>that net.discipline will be overwhelmed and be essentially useless.
>
>Rather than using a newsgroup for [!!] posts, I think that they
>should be handled by email. If a [xx] poster gets enough email from
>other [xx] posters, he will get the idea.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is interesting. I have been keeping detailed notes and records
of how the Usenet culture operates and how "professionals" handle
situations...it sort of reminds me of what you see in the movies where
they claim that someone was shot at close range with a .22 so therefore
it was a professional job...
I have discovered that many "professionals" are worse than the kids,
thugs and "Joe Beer-Cans" that cruise the net...they work behind the
scenes, from foreign contries, from their corporate nets and private
e-mail groups...it is all very "clean" and "professional"...
Usenet is in the open...it is interesting that many "big names" in
the computer field can not operate in the open...they have spent years
developing their skills at working behind the scenes...in some cases
they appear to the Usenet community as harmless and act like prima
donnas...behind the scenes, they are a competely different person...
I think that Usenet allows the discussions to be brought into the
open...I would not support anything that encourages people to appear
on Usenet as one thing and then allows them to operate behind the
scenes as someone else...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Also, I have a problem with the "frequency" limitations. This is
>a restriction that *I* am not willing to live with. And thus I am
>excluded from using the lapel pin. There are several of us
>who have made the time in our professional lives to post somewhat
>prolifically. It seems a shame that we should be excluded from
>a program that is designed to elevate the level of discussion on
>the net.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
People should be allowed to post early and often...
...just like voting in Chicago...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Finally, my most significant complaint. I think that the [$$]
>lapel pin is a VERY bad idea. It not only opens the door to
>commercial advertizers, but also throws out the red carpet for
>them since they can, by their [$$] lapel pin, declare themselves
>to be members of the elite group that elevates the level of
>discussion on the net.
>
>So prepare for hundreds and hundreds of: "[$$] SPECIAL PROMOTION
>SALE OF THE CENTURY" posts. net.discipline will never be able
>to deal with these.
>
>--
>Robert Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered:
>Object Mentor Assoc.| rma...@oma.com | OOA/D, C++, Advanced OO
>2080 Cranbrook Rd. | Tel: (708) 918-1004 | Mgt. Overview of OOT
>Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 | Development Contracts.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I agree with Robert...wonders never cease...
Mark C. Chu-Carroll
>>>>> "Igor" == Igor Chudov @ home <ich...@star89.galstar.com> writes:
In article <3v6hcb$2...@mercury.galstar.com> ich...@star89.galstar.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Igor> There will never be any discipline on the Net. Whether it is
Igor> good or bad is another question.
There will never be any *formal* discipline on the net. But if netnews
is going to survive as a technical forum, there will have to be *some*
kind of voluntary self-discipline. But I rather doubt that it will be
Dr. Meyer's proposal; it strikes me as being arbitrary, bureaucratic,
and elitist. It's a good start, but I really don't think that it's
going to work out. I for one will not follow it, because I dislike the
arbitrariness of the volume limits, and I detest the elitist aspects
of it.
<MC>
--
Igor Chudov @ home
* >>>>> "Igor" == Igor Chudov @ home <ich...@star89.galstar.com> writes:
* In article <3v6hcb$2...@mercury.galstar.com> ich...@star89.galstar.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
* Igor> There will never be any discipline on the Net. Whether it is
* Igor> good or bad is another question.
* There will never be any *formal* discipline on the net. But if netnews
* is going to survive as a technical forum, there will have to be *some*
* kind of voluntary self-discipline. But I rather doubt that it will be
* Dr. Meyer's proposal; it strikes me as being arbitrary, bureaucratic,
* and elitist. It's a good start, but I really don't think that it's
* going to work out. I for one will not follow it, because I dislike the
* arbitrariness of the volume limits, and I detest the elitist aspects
* of it.
A good idea would be to ask yourself (and I realize that I often fail to
do so) if you can say something new or to add something of substance to
the discussion.
Jim Fleming
says...
For what it is worth...I sent Betrand Meyer a short note that describes
what I consider to be a different solution for some of the problems with
Usenet....
My thesis is that the net is not unlike a street gang...people join
various newsgroups to be part of something...since the net is evolving
in real-time, there is a different sense of movement and change than
one gets from TV, radio, newspapers, or movies...
There is a tremendous amount of talent on the net...my proposal is to
organize specific projects which have well-defined goals...anyone that
wants to participate can...those that want to watch can stand on the
side-lines...this is similar to athletic events which are organized
for youths to give them something to focus on and to achieve some
objective...sure, we will have the leather-jacket thugs that stand on
the side-lines looking cool, smoking and generally not contributing...
what is more important is that some people might be able to work
together to produce some result, no matter how large or small...
In a nutshell...rather than focus on asking people to sit up straight
in their chairs and to keep their mouths shut except when they have
a well thought-out statement...I propose that we create study groups,
or birds-of-a-feather projects, or whatever to give readers and writers
something to sink their teeth into...threads are not substantial enough...