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
spaf@gatech.edu (Gene Spafford) (06/30/87)
[My apologies in advance for quoting so much of Webber's text, but there are some of his comments that are very far off the mark, and I wish to address them point-by-point. I'm also pretty pissed at his "holier-than-thou" attitude. If you don't read this whole thing, at least read the last paragraph.] In article <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >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. First he says there was traffic to warrant it, then he says that there was no traffic. Whichever was the case, some of us sent him mail indicated that he should not use up our bandwidth and storage by mailing the list through our sites. Like any other high-volume mail source or alternate newsgroup, the people wishing to receive those groups should set up their own links and *pay for it themselves.* Unfortunately, repeated attempts to explain this to Webber by mail have resulted in responses of either ignorance about how mail works or implications that it is our duty to support every mailing list. >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. Not correct. No one posts daily requests for the contents of netlib through my site -- if they did, I'd demand they set up a direct link. And only a small amount of mail for moderated groups goes through here. A mailing list would generate frequent, heavy demands on the sites with the best connectivity -- like this one. Again, if the sites involved paid for their own connectivity, as with direct links or UUNET, most of us would have no objections and the list could exist happily without us. >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. Nope. The last time I heard anything about this, the majority of backbone sites decided that since two unmoderated sources groups already exist on alternate backbones, we don't need to carry another one. Only a very small and vocal minority seems to want a net-wide unmoderated trash...er source... group. If you want such a group *pay the damn bills yourselves!* UUNET has offered to carry all the groups -- if you want it and feel it of value, pay for it! Otherwise, try to find one of the sites currently carrying the old "net.sources" or new "alt.sources" groups and talk them into paying to feed your site. >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. Nope. The "backbone" is actually the admins (and former admins) of sites listed in the monthly backbone listing. The reasons those sites are there is explained in the text of the posting. And you are correct -- we are not a governing agency. We are a group of individuals who sometimes agree on certain things, who respect each other's opinions (usually), and who have a very large collective amount of experience with news and mail. Many site admins go along with us because they believe we do a reasonable job. Others have some idea of the costs and amount of effort we expend to feed them mail and news reliably and they understand we have to draw the line somewhere. (Example: gatech ships almost 3Mb of news and mail per *day*. We maintain well over 100 major uucp contacts and 30 news feeds, and we are the main mail and news feed for at least 3 states. You think you know better how to run this site and use our resources?) The group is not defined by people I talk with, nor is there some formal organization. However, I don't bother to list a group in the list of active groups if the majority of backbone sites don't carry it -- because the propagation of such a group is hardly going to be net-wide. >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. 1) Usenet is, in many ways an anarchy. That means we do with our site as the admins here decide best. No one else (like you) decides that for us. 2) You are assuming that the vast majority of the net is dissatisfied and afraid to comment. You are undoubtedly wrong -- like any society, the majority just don't give a damn. 3) We don't have an organization or control, nor do we really want any. I want to get the majority of useful groups here, I want reliable mail, and I won't pay to carry groups that are largely worthless locally or at sites nearby. Carry whatever groups you want. 4) Are you suggesting you are reasonable? >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.] Yup. Figures. "The sky is falling, and I can save you. Since you are too stupid to recognize the threat, I will appoint myself your savior." Thank you, Bob. I am much relieved. And how pleasant to know that you will make it easy for me if I "go along." (BTW, it's "impact".) >My first action is to address the problem of net moderation. "My first action as your new savior is...my pet peeve." >The problem is that for certain topics, there is no reasonable alternative >to posting to a moderated group. Thank heavens! >Usenet has traditionally been unmoderated. Yup. And drunk drivers have traditionally killed thousands of people, and oppression of minorities is a world-wide tradition, and war certainly seems to be a tradition, and.... Gee, for the good old days! Because it's traditional, it must be best. >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. Au contraire! People are using those groups, and I know of many people who have resubscribed to groups that were overwhelmed with drivel and noise as unmoderated groups. I think that makes plenty of sense. Here's a challenge: create an alternate backbone for unmoderated versions of those groups. I'll post a bi-weekly posting along with the regular list of groups and list of mailing lists telling people about it and how they can connect up (using their own funds, of course). We'll give it a fair trial -- say 6 months? Which set of groups do you think will have more readers? Care to guess which set would get the axe first at most places if there was a squeeze for disk space? >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.... How do you know they were happy? How do you know they are now less happy? The majority of site admins who have sent me mail seem to be happier since the wave of conversions. >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. Right. "I don't like the system, so send stuff to me and I'll break into groups where I wasn't invited and post stuff the moderator didn't feel appropriate to the group. After all, I'm the net-savior and *I* know what belongs in all the groups!" Thanks, Bob. I feel even more relieved now. > ...I reserve the right to > reject postings without explanation. Right. You'll do exactly the things a moderator does, only because you're "special" it's okay, and besides, no one is allowed to question it. > 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. ...and if it is utter crap, then it is the readers' problem because they subscribed to a moderated group, right Bob? "They deserve it." > 4) The moderators of groups I post to will not be contacted prior to > the posting. Right -- it's not a good idea to find out if there was a good reason not to post it in the first place, right? I mean -- if the moderator rejected it, it must have been because moderation is inherently evil. Besides, as "net-savior" Mr. Webber knows better! >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. Bullshit! When has any backbone admin posted to a moderated newsgroup that they were not the moderator of? And..."your experience" ... "legitimate unmoderated alternatives"? Does anyone else share this lofty view of your abilities? [Bob then gave a list of newsgroups he thinks are equivalent, showing a pretty firm lack of grasp on reality. This included equivalencing a number of binary groups to talk bizarre, equivalencing the fidonet group to the ibm pc group, equivalencing the OS research group to the architecture group, and so on. Some picks must have been made based on the number of letters in the group names....] >Incidently, [this] 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). Wrong again. The stargate folks are trying to provide an alternate distribution mechanism, not a replacement for the net. Anyone interested in details should contact the Stargate folks directly or perhaps actually *read* some of this things they've posted. >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. And who might post that? Could it be the moderators? Noooo. Could it be SATAN!? (oops, wrong schtick. sorry.) No, I guess it might be Bob himself. Isn't that special? Bob is going to merrily go about the net posting his huge articles against moderation in any group that he thinks deserves them. Wanna bet a whole bunch of webber-filters get put into place all over the net real-soon-now? Want to bet that people at Rutgers will get all sorts of mail should such a thing happen? Can you say "shit" and "fan"? I could go on at length because I'm so pissed, but I won't. Many of us have tried to explain in mail to Mr. Webber about things like limited budgets, Arpa discussion lists and politics, alternate backbones, and so on, but he seems to believe that the 80 or 90+ backbone admins and moderators, representing at least 250+ years of net experience, are all wrong and he is right and should be the one to decide these things. He also seems to believe that the admins and users of the net are stupid cowards because they aren't storming the walls of Cabal Castle, demanding the heads of all within (mine in particular, I guess, since I'm the only one he specifically named). Obviously, he holds himself above rule and convention, and believes his judgement better than that of everyone else. Many people joke about the "net-gods" but I doubt that anyone takes it seriously. I know I don't -- few of us are over 8' tall or are able to throw lightning bolts. And I don't think any of us are anywhere near so arrogant to post in somebody else's moderated group without permission. Here's another offer: I'm about to leave Georgia Tech to join the CS faculty at Purdue (yes, I have a real life and a real career and a real degree). I've volunteered to keep the database for the Net for the last 4.5 years. I've tried to help keep the Usenet alive by helping to guide its growth, and by trying to help temper some of the hastier actions. Meantime, I've gotten a lot of abuse, much of it in the last couple of months after the reorganization (probably because I am one of the more "visible" persons on the net). So here's the offer: send me mail if you think I'm doing a rotten job at what I'm doing and/or you think the net is worse off under the current organization. CC it to webber to make him feel better about not being the only one to think that way. On the other hand, if you think maybe I'm doing a "good thing" and/or the net is perhaps headed in the right direction, send me mail about that too (and CC it to webber). I may decide to drop off the net after my move, and the mail I get may help me decide. (webber is at webber@brandx.rutgers.edu, or gatech!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber) Who says we don't listen? :-) -- Gene Spafford Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: spaf@gatech.gatech.edu uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!spaf
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (06/30/87)
In article <15982@gatech.gatech.edu>, spaf@gatech.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: > to address them point-by-point. I'm also pretty pissed at his > "holier-than-thou" attitude. If you don't read this whole thing, at > least read the last paragraph.] > I could go on at length because I'm so pissed, but I won't. Many of us > have tried to explain in mail to Mr. Webber about things like ... I think these two quotes sum it up. The sender was p*ss*d. The stuff for new users tells you not to post in such a condition, but with all that experiance, what do you expect. Anyway, I am willing to wait a few days until the poster is `unp*ss*d' and see if he still wants to post the things he did. For the record, nothing in the message seemed relevant and I feel I can address any of the issues raised if I can only find someone who both believes one of the things posted and isn't simultaneously `p*ss*d'. Incidently, also for the record, I am no longer net ombudsman -- see other message in news.groups. ------------------------------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu)
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (06/30/87)
Those who mourn for "USENET like it was" should remember the original design estimates of maximum traffic volume: two articles a day, from 75-100 sites. (I should know -- those were my numbers, which is why I'm not a traffic forecaster today.) Historically, the evolution of USENET has been driven by one factor and one factor only: vast increases in the amount of traffic. For example, netnews B came about primarily because netnews A kept only a high-water mark of the last article read in sequence, not even separated by newsgroup. That didn't work when traffic reached 15 articles a day! I'm too far removed from the current wars to recommend for or against any particular solution, be it more moderation or more anarchy. I do suggest, though, that people remember that yesterday's answers may not fit today's questions. --Steve Bellovin ulysses!smb
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/30/87)
> ... While there are clearly people who prefer moderation, > this does not justify taking away the unmoderated group... So your solution is to de facto take away the moderated group, by effectively de-moderating it? > 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. Please be advised that unless you have the consent of the moderator for this, which I've seen no indication of, utzoo reserves the right to discard such falsely-moderated messages. We strongly support the moderated groups and do not want to see them destroyed by holier-than-thou bozos who believe it is their God-given right to post anywhere they please. If you think that an unmoderated group deserves to exist on a particular topic, start one. A newsgroup, not a mailing list. Carried on your own uucp links, not the existing backbone, so that *YOU* are paying for it. Piss in your own soup, not everyone else's. (Among your other services to the community, you've probably delayed the release of C News a little bit, because Geoff and I need to put our heads together on what can be done about better security for moderated groups.) -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
mike@turing.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (07/01/87)
After reading the recent post by spaf@gatech (Gene Spafford), one overriding thought occurs to me: Why don't they change the postings to net.announce.newusers to reflect the way the backbone sites do things? I think the real problem is that news.announce.newusers doesn't say anything about big bills, backbone sites doing what they want, etc. All it says is that to create a group, one should post a message in news.groups, and two things happen. First, the merits and disadvantages of the group get debated in news.groups, and second, people mail votes to the proposer of the group. The proposer, if he gets enough votes (~60 is a common figure), should approach his SA and get the group created. Nothing in the entire news.announce.newusers says anything about the backbone's power to veto a group. As Mr. Spafford so well points out, alternative groups die quickly when space gets low, so, by and large, the decisions of the backbone are respected by the majority of sites. I am not debating the merits of having unmoderated source groups or anything like that. I am just suggesting that whoever administers news.announce and news.announce.newusers put in a note about how things REALLY work and not how they worked five years ago. Michael I. Bushnell a/k/a Bach II mike@turing.UNM.EDU --- . my NOSE is NUMB! -- Zippy the Pinhead
pett@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen%CGL) (07/02/87)
If unauthorized postings to moderated groups become a problem, I would suggest that the moderator of the affected group send mail to the news administrator of the originating site of the offending posting, in an attempt to have the admin reconfigure the news software to have the FASCIST option invoked. If repeated mailings to the news admin fail to result in satisfactory action, then the moderator can contact sites progressively upstream of the site in question, attempting to get the news feed cut or a "filter" installed. If this procedure gets up to the backbone and still fails to get action, then perhaps having the group in question moderated is so unpopular that its status should be reconsidered. Eric Pettersen UCSF Computer Graphics Lab pett@cgl.ucsf.edu or ucbvax!ucsfcgl!pett
spaf@gatech.edu (Gene Spafford) (07/06/87)
First off, many thanks to those of you who wrote to me. It is
encouraging to know that there are people who realize that visibility
is not always the same as responsibility, and that difficult choices
sometimes have to be made. The mail also contained some good ideas and
suggestions that I (and others) will definitely investigate.
Some things to consider:
1) Mr. Webber is an intelligent, articulate individual. To brand him
as stupid is not only off-base, but is resorting to the wrong kind of
argument. Just because he ignores some reasoned arguments and will not
change his mind does not necessarily mean he is ignorant or stupid.
2) I do not believe Mr. Webber is "evil", nor do I believe he has
malicious intent with his ideas. Please do not accuse him of such.
3) Mr. Webber is rather rude and condescending at times (as many of you
have found out based on his replies to your mail [that I have seen]),
and as demonstrated by his threat to post into moderated groups without
moderator approval. We should restrain from responding in kind,
however, since not only does it *not* help the matter, it also will
goad him on if he is (as some suspect) a "closet flamer."
4) Judging from the mail I have received, the *vast* majority of people
on the net believe moderation is important and works (usually -- it is
recognized as still evolving, and it may not be the only or "best"
solution), and who would be very angry should someone try to defeat
that mechanism (as I was when I first replied to Bob's article). Out
of nearly 200 mail messages so far, I have had only one message against
the current approach to moderation. If such an outcry had arisen
*against* moderation, the renaming, or other recent actions that some
individuals have vociferously denounced, I am sure they would not have
occurred. Such a weight of opinion should serve to convince any
*reasonable* individual.
5) Most of us, and especially the "cabal," appreciate suggestions and
comments presented in a reasonable manner. In fact, they are welcomed
-- that is how the net has grown and evolved. On the other hand, ideas
presented along with threats, insults, or a lack of basis in reality
tend to be ignored. Some good suggestions have been made in the
context of this whole debate, and I hope that some of them will result
in improvements. From my mail (and experience), I also must conclude
that the majority of sys admins pay more attention when someone pays
the bills to test their own ideas and show their convictions (like the
"alt" backbone and UUNET), when people put in effort to develop their
own code and invest the energy to try something new (like Stargate),
and when sites and personnel make significant investments to keep the
net running (e.g., the backbone). Sys admins do not seem to appreciate
someone with little or no demonstrated experience or expertise suddenly
appearing on the scene, proclaiming that the current system is wrong
and that everyone should do it his way.
6) Most people seem to recognize that the net has changed and is
changing with time and volume. The direction the net takes is unclear,
but reverting to the "good old days" is impractical for the net as a
whole.
Last of all, let me observe that Mr. Webber has been arguing a number
of impractical and sometimes contradictory positions, often at extreme
length, in various news.* groups and in mail over the last few months.
He either does not understand or will not accept the arguments (mailed
and posted) of the people who do not agree with his views *and have the
experience to know what they're talking about*. To my knowledge, no
one else agrees with his views. (If anyone *other* than Mr. Webber can
even explain those views to me, please do so! I've been getting his
mail and postings for months now and all I can get out of it is that he
thinks some kind of quotas should be used instead of moderation, and
that sites should be forced to carry unmoderated groups.) His continued
promulgation and defense of his views may now be more a matter of ego
than reasoned justification, or perhaps he just enjoys the attention.
In either case, may I suggest that we cease debating him and allow him
to either develop a clearer explanation of what he wants (and succinct,
Bob -- no more 200+ line diatribes), or demonstrate a working system
that can convince us it is better that what we are using now? To do
otherwise is to increase the noise level of the net, and perhaps add to
the aggravation of the more responsible individuals who read these
groups.
--
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
Internet: spaf@gatech.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!spafallbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/12/87)
I thought I was through with this, but when Webber presumes to flame at Gene Spafford for daring to not support him, I know something's wrong. As quoted from <270@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | things he did. For the record, nothing in the message seemed relevant | and I feel I can address any of the issues raised if I can only find | someone who both believes one of the things posted and isn't | simultaneously `p*ss*d'. +--------------- Bob, you yack about "not relevant"; my ~/Mail/moderators proves that in your jargon "relevant", applied to you or to anyone else, means "saying Webber's right". Example: Gene addresses EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POINTS; but it's "not relevant". 2nd Example: you respond to my suggestion that you can test your ideas in alt.all by saying that alt.all doesn't solve the net's problems. This is "relevant"? If you are worth anything at all, then DEMONSTRATE your ideas. In alt.all, or via the mechanism I describe in an earlier article (<2865@ncoast.UUCP>) in news.groups. As I have offered to demonstrate ideas, in the above- mentioned article and by supporting alt.all. Otherwise you are just hot air. This IS my last posting on the subject; if Mr. Webber hasn't got the guts to demonstrate his ideas, then I have no time for him. Talk solves nothing and implementing a system without testing it solves even less. -- [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!>>