[news.sysadmin] Governing bodies

david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (07/07/87)

In article <133@hippo.UUCP> eric@hippo.UUCP (Eric Bergan) writes:
>In article <6948@shemp.UCLA.EDU>, dgreen@CS.UCLA.EDU writes:
>> It really is time for a USENET constitution, or at least a set of clearly
>> specified rules.  Otherwise this flaming stuff just keeps getting bigger.
>> I've seen it happen before, in less electronic, but equally loud
>> constituencies.

[ ... ]

>	Now, onto the meat of the reply:

>	In addition to a constitution, how about a "board of trustees"
>to help in deciding policy? It is clear that there is no way under
>the current existance of news to enforce policy on all the systems
>that make up the net, but I imagine if the decisions were open, and
>reasonable, that most of the net would follow them.


I AGREE!

This has been getting more and more and more obvious over the last year
or so.  And the FidoNet newsletter we've been getting for the last few
months has been helping to make it obvious.  They've been able to do
some things we haven't been able to do, such as:

1. Get some recognition of their unique status.  A status which we
   happen to share.
2. Work with the modem manufacturers in the designing of the next
   generation of modems.  (Both in the 2400 baud market and currently
   in the 9600 baud market).

We could have somebody lobbying in Washington (possibly in conjunction
with FIDOnet) in our behalf.  Especially right now with the FCC scaring
us again about access charges.

We could put together a low-cost set of software for all Unix
environments which supported fancy type mail and news.  (This could
even be the sole funding for the organization if worked right).

> [ ... ]

> It seems
>clear to me that some sort of representative body is needed to make
>decisions, since trying to reach a decision using the media of
>news itself is an takes exponential time with respect to the
>complexity (and or political sensitivity) of the issue. 

Political sensitivity is going to be true regardless.  The problems
with the media are technical and vary depending on where you are on the
net.  Back a few months ago (before we were on SURAnet and have now
found ourselves sitting between two backbone sites (Thank you, rutgers
and gatech)) we were pretty much at the edge of the world.  I'm sure we
were missing lots of stuff because of that, and that other people who
aren't so lucky are also missing lots of stuff.  It's hard to stay
informed and respond properly if you're missing lots of stuff.

> Suppose we had a
>board of trustees.  This board would be responsible for deciding about
>the creation of new groups, selection of moderators, and dealing with
>the various problems that may arise.

From watching FIDOnet doing their political hassling involved with
setting up their governing board, we'll have just as much of an
interesting time.

>	The membership of the board would be made up of:

>	- representitives from each of the backbone sites. Since they
>	  pay so many bills, both in time and money, they deserve
>	  seats on the board.

>	- members at large. Chosen from the net populace (by election?)
>	  to represent the interests of readers and smaller sites.

>	- moderators? Not sure about the wisdom of this. On the one hand,
>	  they face the day to day problems of moderating a news group.
>	  On the other hand, I don't think we want the board getting
>	  too large to function efficiently.

This list is probably ok.  But I might want to quibble with it at some
time in the future.  Especially, I'd like to change "representatives
from each of the backbone sites" to "regional representatives".  This
is because it has become much easier to gain the connectivity required
to become a backbone site (we've got two full feeds from backbone sites
and fit a number of other categories right now).  What with PC-Pursuit
(oh, say, a seperate PC-Pursuit for each of two backbone sites) it'd
cost $50 per month in PC-Pursuit charges and possibly some additional
money in case PC-Pursuit bleads over into daytime.

In other words, the old rules don't hold as well as they used to.

>	Obviously, none of the decisions reached by the board would
>force any site to do anything (except as the decisions are implemented
>in either new versions of news software, or by the site feeding you).
>But hopefully the decisions will be reasonable, and a greater amount
>of light (and less heat) will be shed on the decision making process.

hmmmmmm

I thought this was going to be something Bold and New?  But now you're
saying it's the same old stuff as always, but now you've got some
elections and such rot.  Oh boy.

La roi est mort!  Vive la roi!

>	Comments? Is it unworkable?

Like I said ... I agree with the basic idea, but here's some problems
which have occurred to me.

We've already got an organization which would do quite nicely to be a
governing board ... or at least to start a governing board.  That's
Usenix.  Usenix has been funding a lot of things which are aimed at
helping Usenet keep going.  hmmmm....  Maybe I finally see a reason for
me to join Usenix...

There's not a lot of difference between a net run by a "cabal" and a
net run by a governing board.  People can ignore elections just as well
as they can ignore making themselves well enough connected to be a
backbone person (or simply to have reliable news feeds).  Theoretically
the governing board version of Usenet is fairer I suppose.

What do we do with the non-american components of Usenet?  They already
have governing boards for their portions ... and they do receive
newsgroups from here (not all however).

At many places the existance of News is a hush-hush secret that, if the
grey suits were to find out about, would get thrown off the system.  At
other places (here for example) it's an accepted part of the environment.  
(For example, part of my official duties are to manage the news system).
How does someone at the hush-hush place join Usenet is there is some sort
of official recognition involved.  Right now we fit in quite nicely at
the hush-hush places because we *don't* require the official recognition.

And don't think we'd never get to requiring official recognition either.
That's a logical extension of setting up a governing board...



Well, this posting has gone on long enough ... Comments?
-- 
----- David Herron,  Local E-Mail Hack,  david@ms.uky.edu, david@ms.uky.csnet
-----                            {uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
----- bsmtp-users@ms.uky.edu for bsmtp discussion
----- bsmtp-users-request@ms.uky.edu for administrivia

eric@hippo.UUCP (07/07/87)

In article <6875@e.ms.uky.edu>, david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes:

> This has been getting more and more and more obvious over the last year
> or so.  And the FidoNet newsletter we've been getting for the last few
> months has been helping to make it obvious.  They've been able to do
> some things we haven't been able to do, such as:
> 
> 1. Get some recognition of their unique status.  A status which we
>    happen to share.
> 2. Work with the modem manufacturers in the designing of the next
>    generation of modems.  (Both in the 2400 baud market and currently
>    in the 9600 baud market).
> 
> We could have somebody lobbying in Washington (possibly in conjunction
> with FIDOnet) in our behalf.  Especially right now with the FCC scaring
> us again about access charges.
> 
> We could put together a low-cost set of software for all Unix
> environments which supported fancy type mail and news.  (This could
> even be the sole funding for the organization if worked right).

	You are certainly taking the concept farther than I was. While
I don't necessarily disagree, you are significantly adding to the workload
of anyone on the board. Perhaps they would have sufficient extra time,
or their employers would be motivated to allow them to participate in
lobbying, etc - I just don't know.

> > [ List of possible board members ]
> This list is probably ok.  But I might want to quibble with it at some
> time in the future.  Especially, I'd like to change "representatives
> from each of the backbone sites" to "regional representatives".  This
> is because it has become much easier to gain the connectivity required
> to become a backbone site (we've got two full feeds from backbone sites
> and fit a number of other categories right now).
> [ ... ]
> In other words, the old rules don't hold as well as they used to.

	Agreed. But what is the likelihood of success if the "major"
sites don't abide by the decisions, since they didn't have a voice
in the policy making? (There seem to be some informed people on the
net that feel the backbone is not as important as it once was - is
this really the case? If so, why all the concern over the policies that
the backbone sites want to institute?)

> >	Obviously, none of the decisions reached by the board would
> >force any site to do anything (except as the decisions are implemented
> >in either new versions of news software, or by the site feeding you).
> >But hopefully the decisions will be reasonable, and a greater amount
> >of light (and less heat) will be shed on the decision making process.
> hmmmmmm
> I thought this was going to be something Bold and New?  But now you're
> saying it's the same old stuff as always, but now you've got some
> elections and such rot.  Oh boy.

	How would you enforce decisions? Even if a central governing
body was set up, it seems to me that the only enforcement capability
is basically "play ball with us, or you can't play at all". Even supporting
that under the current topology is difficult, since to cut off a site,
you would have to convince everyone not to feed it. How would you
deal with an individual who is violating the rules, when the rest of
that site is not in violation? What if the villain had root on that
machine?

> We've already got an organization which would do quite nicely to be a
> governing board ... or at least to start a governing board.  That's
> Usenix.  Usenix has been funding a lot of things which are aimed at
> helping Usenet keep going.

	I believe this idea has been brought up in the past and that
the Usenix board wanted little to do with trying to "control" the
net. Has there been a change of policy?

> What do we do with the non-american components of Usenet?  They already
> have governing boards for their portions ... and they do receive
> newsgroups from here (not all however).

	How are the foreign governing boards run? Do they work successfully?
If yes, is their success due to good governing, or simply fewer sites to
oversee?

> At many places the existance of News is a hush-hush secret that, if the
> grey suits were to find out about, would get thrown off the system.

	Hard to hide the bills for phone and disk storage much longer...

> And don't think we'd never get to requiring official recognition either.
> That's a logical extension of setting up a governing board...

	I think the bigger issue that you raise is "Has Usenet grown
to the point where we must have central administration or Usenet will
crumble under its own weight?" I'm not sure. I would like to think
that some kind of "federated" network, with a central body making
suggestions, but the individual sites retaining autonomy would be
better, and is feasible. But this may be unrealistic.


-- 

					eric
					...!ptsfa!hippo!eric

brad@looking.UUCP (07/08/87)

I think you miss the point.  Usenet started as, and to the best of my knowledge
still is, and underground network.

At least the last time anybody investigated it, many of the long distance links
were hidden in large company phone bills, hidden from management.  Most
sites said that if you presented management with a way to get usenet for half
price, the result would be "you mean we're paying $x for that crap now???"

Perhaps this has changed.  Perhaps such sites are now in a minority.  UUNET
and Stargate will tell.  Until such underground sites are gone, central
organization is impossible.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473