craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/14/89)
In article <712@calmasd.Prime.COM> gdh@calmasd.Prime.COM (Gerald Hall) writes: >In the absence of a supreme court to rule on this matter >I feel it is the responsibility of the individual sysadmins >to overrule group creations which are blatantly "unconstitutional". >To play out the analogy, just because a law is passed does not >make it legal. [...deleted...] >Jerry What this points out is that the Usenet is really akin to a feudal landscape dotted with cities and keeps run by the systems administrators. No democracy. No anarchy. Some of these baronial sys admins will let their citizens (users) have a say in the operation of their computers, while others rule with an Iron Keyboard. Some rule their territories in constant fear of the wrath of their gods (machine owners), while others have actually attained godhood. Put into this light, I don't understand why the "democracy deception" should continue to be perpetrated. It just does a disservice to those poor souls who believe democracy exists. It is time to lay down the law. /craig P.S. BTW, a 1/2 ;^) to all of the above. Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org 2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 fax
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/15/89)
>What this points out is that the Usenet is really akin to a feudal >landscape dotted with cities and keeps run by the systems >administrators. No democracy. No anarchy. >Put into this light, I don't understand why the "democracy deception" >should continue to be perpetrated. It just does a disservice to those >poor souls who believe democracy exists. That's not true. 95% of the time, the current situation works pretty well. It may need tweaking to clean up the rough edges, but most of the time, the voting/consenus setup gets us an answer that everyone accepts. People vote, the admins rubberstamp it. That's a *lot* easier than trying to the net based on anarchy. Where it doesn't is in the special cases, when something extraordinary happens and the system we've created breaks down. When someone, for instance, manipulates the system or otherwise does something that many people find unpalatable. You won't find a lot of argument over rec.radio.shortwave, if any. The system worked here. In almost all group creations in the last few months, even when there was a controversy the results of the voting were accepted and everyone went on to the next flamefest. Sci.aquaria, on the other hand, has made many people feel that the system was manipulated and that the intent of the system was broken. So they're doing what they feel they need to to fix the system. I'd argue the following: o A single case where the system breaks down is no reason to throw out the system. It works, most of the time. If we can make it work more reliably, with less bureaucracy and overhead, great. Let's make it better. But throw it out because it blew up once? That's over-reacting. o A situation where the news administrators overule a vote is *not* a case of the system not working. It is *part* of the system, a part that the voting system makes unnecessary under most circumstances. This kind of action is a feedback mechanism, helping to remind people that they can't just run roughshod over the network -- that there are limits to what the net will tolerate. So that's not an instance of the system breaking down, but simply a rarely used feedback mechanism coming into play. I think it's really showing that the system *does* work, and works quite well -- because these things happen very rarely. None of the arguing, posturing, blustering, moaning, whimpering and bleating going on in news.* proves nothing, really (mine included). Whether sci.aquaria was a good group or a bad group will be decided by its distribution. If the net refuses to distribute it then all the pro-sci posturing is meaningless. And, vote notwithstanding, if the pro-sci folks succeeded in pissing off enough admins to kill the distribution, it'll send a strong signal to others who might consider the same ploys later. (on the other hand, the obverse is true -- if the distribution is close to normal for sci.aquaria, then the anti-sci folks know where they stand). This basic question will take a couple of months to settle out. Either way, frankly, I think it's time we moved on to other things. The vote is over, so lets quit trying to fight the fight over and over again. There isn't much that can be done to change the way the dice have rolled, and the rest is just noise. it isn't the impending death of the net, and it probably isn't that important one way or another, anyway. And the flames are getting boringly repetitive. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes if one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (11/25/89)
In article <3013@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >What this points out is that the Usenet is really akin to a feudal >landscape dotted with cities and keeps run by the systems >administrators. No democracy. No anarchy. >Put into this light, I don't understand why the "democracy deception" >should continue to be perpetrated. It just does a disservice to those >poor souls who believe democracy exists. [there was a 1/2 smiley -- kl] Tim Maroney was the first person I ever saw to point this out. He said (as I recall) that it is anarchy among the sysadmins, but feudal for the users. One thing, though, where to be a feudal baron in times past was largely a hereditary thing, here on Usenet all you have to do to become a baron is score a 3B1 or a PC and a newsfeed. Also I suppose that in times past the existing barons worked really hard to keep each other down and to keep others from becoming bigshots. Here it's still pretty easy to find help. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first." -- Pascal
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/25/89)
>One thing, though, where to be a feudal baron in times past was largely a >hereditary thing, here on Usenet all you have to do to become a baron is >score a 3B1 or a PC and a newsfeed. Actually, rather than hereditary, think of them as landed gentry -- they were the owners of the land (the hereditary aspect being secondary -- the king or overlord could give someone a title on whim and make them a baron). Which, when you consider a sysadmin to be the 'owner' of the machine and the rest of us the sharecroppers... >Also I suppose that in times past the >existing barons worked really hard to keep each other down and to keep others >from becoming bigshots. Here it's still pretty easy to find help. Not really. There were schmucks in the heirarchy, but the smart lords were the ones that kept out of the peasants hair and let them run their lives as much as possible -- as long as they paid their taxes, of course. A good argument could be made that the people who till the land know how to till it better than the people who own it -- unless the owner also happens to be a tiller. And smart landowners let the experts run the show and don't meddle, since that's the best way to maximize profit. I do so love twisting analogies into unrecognizable forms... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] When it comes to matters ourside your specialties, you are consistently and brilliantly stupid [....] with respect to matters you haven't studied and have had no experience basing your opinions on casual gossip [....] and plain misinformation -- unsuspected because you haven't attempted to verify it. -- Robert Heinlein to J.W. Campbell, Jr. 1941