webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (06/29/87)
[The following 200- lines announce the death of the sources mailing list
and the creation of a net ombudsman that indirectly handles the problem
of finding an outlet for unmoderated sources. In particular, this message
gives a procedure for getting a message posted when you don't feel like
sending it to one of the Usenet moderators and you don't want to fake an
approval.]
Hi. Over the past month, an attempt was made to find out if there was
sufficient justification for the creation of an unmoderated sources group
by the tried and true method of creating a mailing list and seeing if
traffic justified it. Well, traffic justified it. Indeed with no traffic
at all, many backbone sites contacted me indicating that it was too much
and that I couldn't send anymore through their sites. Further, in spite
of the existance of things like netlib and the way sources get to moderated
groups, I was assured that mail cannot support such a list without getting
permission of all the intermediate sites. So, it looks like creating a sources
mailing list just won't fly. Sorry and much thanks to the 100+ who showed
support. In the words of one backbone site, the list is now nuked.
According to a rumor posted to the net by gnu!gilmore and consistant with
a similar posting by hao!wood earlier, it would appear that the backbone
has been poised in favour of such a list for a number of weeks but can't
get its act together to actually create it. The mailing list plus vote
of 100+ would justify it regardless of the question of the wisdom of
having done the moderation in the first place. However, no replies have
resulted from any of the times I have notified spaf@gatech of the size
of the vote.
The interesting question is how could such a vote be ignored. The answer
is that the backbone is not a governing agency of usenet, but is rather
the collection of sites that spaf@gatech tends to interact with regularly.
In turn, spaf@gatech is not the ruler of usenet, but is rather someone who
has done alot of good things for usenet and sends out alot of reliable
information, to such an extent that by inertia and laziness of most of the
usenet sites, he is in effect administering most of the news on usenet.
This means that if you have a disagreement with the backbone sites, the
only way you are going to get them to change is if they decide they didn't
really want to do what happened in the first place. If it was done
intentionally, you are just shouting down a well.
Sine the Usenet is an anarchy in which everyone can do whatever they want
one would presume the above was not a necessarily bad thing. However,
since the vast majority of the net wish to appear reasonable and civilized
and fear any kind of united opposition from the net, this means that as
long as they are getting something from their connection to Usenet, they
won't squawk too loudly as they loose more and more bit by bit. However,
these fears are groundless, since the backbone sites have neither the
time nor organization to actually control the entire Usenet in the face of
determined reasonable opposition.
Thus, what the net needs is a `net ombudsman' whose purpose is to minimize
the empact on the net of some of the more foolish actions we have seen
recently. Until others volunteer to cover this duty, I will be handling
it. Just as in the case of the backbone, it is possible for any site to
go its own way and completely ignore what I do. However, just as with
the backbone, I will try and make sure that it is easier for them to go
along. [Incidently, co-ombudspeople are also welcome.]
My first action is to address the problem of net moderation.
The problem is that for certain topics, there is no reasonable alternative
to posting to a moderated group. Usenet has traditionally been unmoderated.
While the creation of moderated groups is plausible for certain low traffic
topics, the attempt to use them as replacements for previous large unmoderated
groups is unsupportable. While there are clearly people who prefer moderation,
this does not justify taking away the unmoderated group from the mass of
people who were happy with what was going on, even though it may justify
the creation of parallel moderated groups on some topics. Always remember
that no site is required to carry all groups (although most people seem to
carry as much as they can afford -- so it must be good stuff).
My solution: if someone sends me a message that seems to me to be relevant
to a moderated group where there is no unmoderated alternative, I will post
it there.
Implementation: Send your postings to: rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber
Indicate which group you want them to go to and what subject
line you want. Don't forget to sign your messages. Anonymous
postings will be handled slower. I reserve the right to
reject postings without explanation. I will acknowledge
requests for postings when the return mail paths work,
but keep your own copy as I will probably not return it
in toto.
Details: 1) The messages will be clearly marked as having been approved by me,
both on the approved line and at the top of the message body.
2) The message will not be edited, if it is below standard for the
group I send it to, that is the author's problem.
3) The message will be posted Distribution: usa . The reason for this
is that it has been brought to my attention by the gateway sites that
places like Europe and Austrailia are not really on the Usenet due
to economic problems with international communication at the rate of
2 meg per day, but are instead closer to the status of BitNet,
ArpaNet, and various other nets that gateway into Usenet.
4) The moderators of groups I post to will not be contacted prior to
the posting. In order to determine what is appropriate for a given
group I will use the comments in the List of Active News Groups in
conjunction with whatever materials the moderators may choose to send
me.
5) The entire message will get posted, so don't send me justifications
unless you want them posted also. I am assuming that the authors
do not object to posting in the group they indicate, but just would
prefer someone other than them had a look at the message first and
handled the actual mechanics of posting. It is not necessary for
the posting to have been previously turned down in order for me to
post it.
While the above may seem somewhat arbitrary, I have noticed that it works well
for the backbone and am not inclined to change until experience shows
otherwise. However, because I am a busy person, I will take the time to
actually go through the list of moderated groups and indicate which ones I
view as subject to postings from me in my role as Ombudsman and which groups
have legitimate unmoderated alternatives. [Incidently, I personally encourage
people to contemplate the significance of posting to a Moderated Group versus
posting to Its Alternative.]
Moderated Group with Reasonable Alternative The Alternative
-------------------------------------------- --------------
comp.ai.digest comp.ai
comp.binaries.amiga talk.bizzare
comp.binaries.atari.st talk.bizzare
comp.binaries.ibm.pc talk.bizzare
comp.binaries.mac talk.bizzare
comp.bugs.4bsd.ucb-fixes comp.bugs.4bsd
comp.compilers comp.misc
comp.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.modems
comp.doc.techreports sci.research
comp.graphics.digest comp.graphics
comp.hypercube comp.arch
comp.laser-printers comp.text
comp.mail.elm comp.mail.misc
comp.newprod misc.forsale
comp.org.fidonet comp.sys.ibm.pc
comp.os.os9 comp.os.misc
comp.os.research comp.arch
comp.protocols.kermit comp.protocols.misc
comp.risks comp.misc
comp.society comp.misc
comp.std.c comp.lang.c
comp.std.mumps comp.std.misc
comp.std.unix comp.unix.wizards
comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest comp.sys.ibm.pc
comp.sys.m68k.pc comp.sys.misc
comp.sys.mac.digest comp.sys.mac
comp.sys.masscomp comp.sys.misc
comp.sys.sequent comp.sys.misc
comp.sys.sun comp.sys.misc
comp.sys.workstations comp.sys.misc
comp.text.desktop comp.text
comp.unix comp.unix.wizards
misc.handicap sci.med
misc.psi talk.bizzare
news.announce.conferences sci.research
news.lists news.misc
rec.arts.movies.reviews rec.arts.movies
rec.food.recipes rec.food.cooking
rec.guns rec.misc
rec.humor.spc rec.humor
rec.mag.otherrealms rec.arts.sf-lovers
rec.music.gaffa rec.music.misc
sci.med.aids sci.med
soc.human-nets news.misc
soc.politics talk.politics.misc
soc.politics.arms-d talk.politics.misc
soc.religion.christian talk.religion.misc
Moderated Group without Reasonable Alternative Plus Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------
comp.doc Archived public-domain documentation
comp.mail.maps Various maps, including UUCP maps
comp.sources.amiga Source code-only postings for the Amiga
comp.sources.atari.st Source code-only postings for the Atari ST
comp.sources.games Postings of recreational software
comp.sources.mac Software for the Apple Macintosh
comp.sources.misc Posting of software
comp.sources.unix Postings of public-domain sources
news.announce.important General announcments of interest to all
news.announce.newusers Explanatory postings for new users
Considering the nature of the above list, it is no real surprise that
sources was the first place where the problem was noticed.
Of course, as the participants in various groups changes, question of whether
or not some specific group has a reasonable alternative or not may change.
As with all things on usenet, the above is subject to change without notice.
Incidently, spaf@gatech (a moderator) has announced, in the list of moderators,
the policy of referring all disagreements with specific moderators to the
moderators' mailing list. This is akin to letting legislators set their own
salaries.
A copy of this action is going to all the relevant parties, i.e.,
moderators@cbosgd.att.COM , backbone@gatech.edu , spaf@gatech.edu ,
news.admin , news.sysadmin, news.misc , news.groups , and news.stargate .
Incidently, it is going to the stargate group because stargate is in the
process of trying to replace the backbone and they are planning on carrying
only the moderated groups (and hence a rather lengthy discussion of moderation
has already occurred there). It was not sent to news.announce.important
because so few people are interested in the politics of the net, that it
certainly isn't justified in being blasted at everyone. It has not yet
appeared on news.announce.newusers because policy isn't yet stable enough
to be other than confusing to new users. Due to a bug in postnews (which has
been reported), it was separately posted to comp.sources.d . As things settle
out, a revised copy will appear in those places where moderators are in
control of the only reasonable outlet for a discussion.
---- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)weemba@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener) (06/29/87)
Hey, let's play the game of Ombudsman Tag! In article <266@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx (Webber) writes: >Thus, what the net needs is a `net ombudsman' whose purpose is to minimize >the empact on the net of some of the more foolish actions we have seen >recently. Until others volunteer to cover this duty, I will be handling >it. OK, I've just volunteered! Now *I'm* the `net ombudsman', until someone else volunteers to cover this important duty. You did a good job Bob--I hope I can live up to your high standards. Speaking for the soft underbelly of the net, ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 A man does not walk down the street giving a haughty twirl to his moustaches at the thought of his superiority to some variety of deep-sea fishes. --G K Chesterton
roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) (07/01/87)
This is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen. Please create a specific distribution code for messages rammed into newsgroups behind the backs of their moderators so my machine may reject this nonsense. -- ///==\\ (No disclaimer - nobody's listening anyway.) /// Roger B.A. Klorese, CELERITY (Northeast Area) \\\ 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552 \\\==// celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV - seismo!celtics!roger
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (07/02/87)
[ I have the Line Eater captive. Just leave net.sources under the small statue of a pigeon in central park and it will be returned to you. ] > Moderated Group with Reasonable Alternative The Alternative > -------------------------------------------- -------------- > comp.binaries.amiga talk.bizzare > comp.binaries.atari.st talk.bizzare > comp.binaries.ibm.pc talk.bizzare > comp.binaries.mac talk.bizzare This is a joke, right? This whole message is a joke just for the purpose of slamming binaries groups, right? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/03/87)
In article <1610@celtics.UUCP>, roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: > This is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen. Please create > a specific distribution code for messages rammed into newsgroups > behind the backs of their moderators so my machine may reject this > nonsense. Creating a specific distribution code is IDENTICAL to creating a unmoderated group which is EXACTLY what is being requested and has been requested for the last month. Glad to hear you support the idea. Of course whether you choose to reject or except traffic on any group is entirely up to each local site (except to the extent that in order to effectively recieve something you have to find someone else that is broadcasting it). ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
john@xanth.UUCP (John Owens) (07/04/87)
In article <275@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > Please create > > a specific distribution code for messages rammed into newsgroups > Creating a specific distribution code is IDENTICAL to creating a > unmoderated group which is EXACTLY what is being requested and has > been requested for the last month. No, No, No! BOB, you're continually decreasing you're credibility. First, a new distribution code does not create a line in the active file, does not count against the newsgroup limit, and, most importantly, does not create a new place for the articles to reside, but just puts them in the newsgroup(s) the article was posted to. This article has a distribution of "world". If it had a distribution of "usa" it would still show up in comp.sources.d, but on less machines. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you looked at the headers. Second, what he was proposing was *one* distribution code to be applied to *any* messages forced into *any* moderated newsgroups. This would be used in place of "world", not in place of the name of the newsgroup. [Your confusion probably comes from the common pratice of creating a set of limited-distribution newsgroups with a prefix identical to the distribution. This is just a convenience to let the users work better with the software and to help things be administered, nothing more.] -- John Owens Old Dominion University - Norfolk, Virginia, USA john@ODU.EDU old arpa: john%odu.edu@RELAY.CS.NET +1 804 440 4529 old uucp: {seismo,harvard,sun,hoptoad}!xanth!john
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/04/87)
As quoted from <275@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | Creating a specific distribution code is IDENTICAL to creating a | unmoderated group which is EXACTLY what is being requested and has | been requested for the last month. Glad to hear you support the | idea. +--------------- By whom, Mr. Webber? I have proof (email) that the majority of people prefer having only moderated sources groups. The MAJORITY, defined as > 50%, not something you can argue around. If you'd like I'll mail you my collected email and some statistics. (82K mail file, mostly short messages) If, as it seems, you are in the minority, then you have no right to screw the rest of the net over with this bypass-the-moderator-as-I-please non- sense. Most of the net will probably respond by hacking inews to reject your postings or similar responses -- this being reserved for the most obnoxious individuals. ++Brandon -- ---- Moderator for comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc ---- Brandon S. Allbery <BACKBONE>!cbosgd!hal!ncoast!allbery ('til Aug. 1) aXcess Company {ames,mit-eddie,harvard,talcott}!necntc!ncoast!allbery 6615 Center St. #A1-105 {well,sun,pyramid,ihnp4}!hoptoad!ncoast!allbery Mentor, OH 44060-4101 necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Internet) +01 216 974 9210 ncoast!allbery@CWRU.EDU (CSnet -- if you dare) NCOAST ADMIN GROUP Brandon Allbery on 157/504 (Fidonet/Matrix/whatever) * ncoast -- Public Access UN*X -- (216) 781-6201, 24 hrs., 300/1200/2400 baud * * ncoast is proud to be carrying alt.all -- contact me for more information *
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/07/87)
In article <2778@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > By whom, Mr. Webber? I have proof (email) that the majority of people prefer > having only moderated sources groups. The MAJORITY, defined as > 50%, not > something you can argue around. If you'd like I'll mail you my collected > email and some statistics. (82K mail file, mostly short messages) My understanding is that proper utilization of mail would require you to contact all the intervening sites and make sure they don't object and can handle an 82k posting. If you can make them available to me without disrupting the rest of the net, I would, of course, enjoy browsing them (however, I do not have control over the communication lines at my current site). Anyway, I fail to see the relevance of the question of whether or not the majority of the people on the net wish to see a new group. In the past, the only relevant question was: Was there enough support for a new group to warrant creating it? I have currently gathered 100+ people who would have used the new group had it been created. In the past, that was plenty. Before you start talking about procedure, please show me when it was voted upon that net.sources and mod.sources would be merged and subsequently split into multiple moderated groups as well as how you ended up being the moderator of the one that is currently closest in goals to the old net.sources. It strikes me that your interest in proper procedure is rather new found. > If, as it seems, you are in the minority, then you have no right to screw > the rest of the net over with this bypass-the-moderator-as-I-please non- > sense. You are beating a dead horse here. I turned over the net ombudsman job to weemba@berkeley.edu within 24 hours of its announcement. ---- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
holloway@drivax.UUCP (07/08/87)
In article <2778@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: >By whom, Mr. Webber? I have proof (email) that the majority of people prefer >having only moderated sources groups. The MAJORITY, defined as > 50%, not >something you can argue around. If you'd like I'll mail you my collected >email and some statistics. (82K mail file, mostly short messages) Getting votes for anything is useless. I'm surprised people even count the votes when proposing changes - people who are FOR a proposal are FAR more likely to send in a vote than those against. I can't think of even the most unlikely group where "yea" votes haven't outstripped "neas". Divide the number of "yes" votes by a hundred or so before compating them. And add a "nea" vote for moderated source groups, and a "yea" (really, 1/100 of a "yea" B-) for an unmoderated source group. I don't care if my programs don't get archived, I just want to see them out there. I sent several programs to comp.sources.games. After waiting several weeks, it became clear to me that I wasn't going to see them in the newsgroup, and this after spending a good amount of time making sure that inews sent them to the correct moderator (well, to ames). I never got the mail bounced back, leastways. Anyway. I became so frustrated that I just posted it to the newsgroup myself, using the "Approved" field trick. Now THAT got a response. But more importantly, the game got out - all I ever really wanted. So, once I thought I had the moderators attention, I sent another source to the newsgroup. And it hasn't shown up yet, and it has to have been at least a month. Maybe moderation can work, maybe this is an isolated incident, or the connection is failing somewhere - who can tell? If there were an unmoderated sources group, I could just post to THAT and know it was getting out. And I never minded all the other discussions, either. - Bruce -- Bruce Holloway - Terminal Netnews Addict {seismo,sun}!amdahl!drivax!holloway ALBATROSS, ATARI*TROS @ Plink ALBATROSS @ Delphi >>> HI, KARL! <<<
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/11/87)
As quoted from <287@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | was plenty. Before you start talking about procedure, please show me | when it was voted upon that net.sources and mod.sources would be | merged and subsequently split into multiple moderated groups as well | as how you ended up being the moderator of the one that is currently | closest in goals to the old net.sources. It strikes me that your | interest in proper procedure is rather new found. +--------------- I have *that* letter too. Basically, Rick Adams _told_ me that net.sources was becoming comp.sources.misc and that it WOULD be moderated -- no question, no place for me to complain. He then _asked_ me whether I would like to be the moderator of the group. Tell me, where did you get the idea that *I* chose to make net.sources moderated? It seems to me that, having run out of real arguments, you're just lashing out blindly at me for having the temerarity to contradict you. -- [Copyright 1987 Brandon S. Allbery, all rights reserved] \ ncoast 216 781 6201 [Redistributable only if redistribution is subsequently permitted.] \ 2400 bd. Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{ames,harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,{well,ihnp4}!hoptoad,cbosgd}!ncoast!allbery <<The opinions herein are those of my cat, therefore they must be correct!>>