cratz@datack.UUCP (Tony Cratz) (10/04/88)
> The nature of this list will be different from the old backbone list. > Membership will be at the request of those wishing to be involved, as > before. Continued existence in the alias file will be based on the > evidence of ongoing participation, that is, one can be on this list if As with any list to be on the list should always be by request and NOT by APPOINTMENT. There are a number of us that have small feeds that would like to know whats going on even though we may not say anything or it might not effect us the same way. Also we need to provide a way for the small feed new newsadmin to have a means to get on the list. It would be unfair to those people if we made it by vote. I agree that in order to continue to be on the list that when the time come for a vote on the issues that the person(s) give a vote. > wishes to `specialize.' Also, I tend to be inclined more to news > admins at sites which operate a substantial number of newsfeeds, since > they invariably understand much better than most leaf node admins I've > known the problems of heavy load, multiple connections, and all those > sorts of problems. A point of importance: I intend to set a policy > for the list of positively no flaming whatever; that one flame > containing obscenities, personal attacks, or general insult of any > kind are grounds for immediate removal. I include that quality What you are talking about is a form of getting news without out representation. The question is how do we do this? Run for office, the answer is no. Or request to be included, again the answer is no. The question is what is the best method? How about if we set it up so that when we vote our vote is a representation for the number of machine that we have connection with minus the number of machines that has someone else voting for them. What I mean by this is IF site alpha has connections with b, c, d, e, f, g and someone on f & g also votes then alpha will only represent machines alpha, b, c, d, & e. I realize that this require more work at the time that the voting takes place but it also means that each site ONLY get represeneted ONCE and not more than once. After each round of voting has taken place we use a little bit of statistic represent T number of sites out of a larger population. (I hope that I have made myself clear enought for someone else to understand) > personally, Gene, during the argument over c.s.w. Also, I am emphatic > that I will post periodic (monthly?) summaries of activity in this > list, to emphasize the non-private nature of the list, so that anyone > and everyone who wants to know can be aware of the discussion which > takes place there. > Seeing that those on the LIST would be representing the rest of the population we always need to post to let everyone know what we are doing. After all if we are to represent them we need to know what they want and not what I (the big person with the vote) wants. > At this time, I wish to formally invite any and all news admins out > there who think they might be interested, who think they have > sufficient knowledge and experience, who can afford to invest the time > and energy in contributing to a forum like this, to become > participants in the list. Drop me a note and I'll get the list > started within a few days. > Well we should also open it up for those of us that are new to the system (Yes I know that may mean some extra over head but that is also how people learn and there are a number of new people each day that we need to have represented that we might forget about their feelings as we grow older our self) + Our choices are basically to either do it all in public or to do it in + some mailing list. Completely open discussion won't work, for the same + reason that we have governing bodies in our governments. (i.e. + congress here in the US and parliament most everywhere else). That is, + if *everybody* is able to talk then all that will get done is a lot of + shouting, some of it loud from people who want to be heard regardless + of how right or wrong they are. Agree strongly BUT we still must let people know whats going on so that we can represent them correctly. + reasons? Something like the "no-confidence" votes I hear about in + parliamentary countries? A 'no-confidence' vote might be the best thing. Just think about those that we represent, if they don't like what we are doing then we should be voted out of 'office'. + Voting by the populace on who should be in the committee(s)? The vote + being run something like a newsgroup-creation vote is run now. I don't like this idea because those that have new sites might be left in the dark without much of a say of what happens. + More than one committee? (i.e. one centered on rule-making, another + on policy implementation, another on connectivitie, etc) Something + like there being a seperate committee now for moderators, another + for some of the NNTP managers, another for people doing newsgroup + gatewaying in/out of mailing lists and so forth.. Yes more then one committee. We need a central committee for USENET. What I mean by this for example is that the 'moderator committee' can ONLY decide how moderators are going to handle the things that they do and not what newsgroups are created. -- "Looks like plant food to me" Tony Cratz work phone: (408) 982-3585 UUCP: uunet!altnet!datack!cratz Snail: Datachecker, 800 Central Expressway MS 33-36, Santa Clara, Ca 95052