kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (08/26/89)
This wasn't a "pretty debate" but I think a few things came out of it that make us all the better. I got the impression from Greg Woods personally that he really didn't mean anything by it, when he told me that he wouldn't create the group. He expected the group to be created ... but having voted against it, he didn't want to send the control message. He also pointed out that he is not the only one who receives the messages sent to "newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu" ... so perhaps someone else could have been found to create the group at that node anyway ... if that had had to be done. The problem then was as I see it, that some of the system administrators weren't fully aware that newsgroups can be legitimately created WITHOUT the message being sent by Spafford or Greg Woods. What legitimizes the creation of a group is the following the procedure defined in guidelines for doing so. So long as a group has received 100 more YES votes than NO votes and followed the rest of the guidelines, the group can legitimately be created WITHOUT Spafford's or Woods' intervention. This allows "democracy" to reign, and allows Woods and Spafford the right to hold opinions... like all the rest of us. There are drawbacks to being "Czar" ya know :-) :-) So if this discussion results in some of the smaller "vassals" in net-dom (eg the system administrators) to come to appreciate that they actually have more leeway in net-decisions than they thought ... that they DON'T have to follow Woods/Spafford's lead ... if they do not wish ... so long as they are following protocol ... and thus know what the protocol is, then this has been worth it. A net-Magna Carta?? So let's let the dust settle now... take care. dennis
tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Y. Tso) (08/27/89)
In article <19486@usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >The problem then was as I see it, that some of the system administrators >weren't fully aware that newsgroups can be legitimately created WITHOUT the >message being sent by Spafford or Greg Woods. This is definite true; but.... some news administrators have a lot of respect for people like Gene Spafford or Greg Woods. So don't be surprised if some people just quietly ignore newgroups from people they do not know and trust. After all, if people who have put a far more work into making USENET work than most of us are against (or for) a particular idea, in general they usually have a good reason for their opinions. And it follows that sys admins are free to follow people like Gene Spafford or Greg Woods because of the above reasons with out being accused of being involved in some evil conspiracy. Remember, it isn't always a conspiracy --- you just might be wrong :-) >What legitimizes the creation of a group is the following the procedure >defined in guidelines for doing so. Well, I had always that that the guidelines were themselves based and created out of some more basic agreements about USENET --- which includes the original definitions about what the top-level hierarchy is and its definitions. Perhaps they should be worked into the guidelines as well. Or perhaps we should just let common sense rule --- although, common sense seems to be quite rare in USENET, alas. >So if this discussion results in some of the smaller "vassals" in net-dom >(eg the system administrators) to come to appreciate that they actually have >more leeway in net-decisions than they thought ... that they DON'T have to >follow Woods/Spafford's lead ... if they do not wish ... so long as they are >following protocol ... and thus know what the protocol is, then this has been >worth it. A net-Magna Carta?? Of course they don't have to follow their lead! They can also issue newgroups for soc.rights.alien, if they wish. However, _other_ sys admins aren't likely to their lead, either. Sys admins have the right to do anything to their machines that they wish --- and they can broadcast anything that their neighbors are willing to tolerate. However, because some of us recognize that other people have more experience and perhaps a better perspective, we will often defer to those people. ..... and there you have the back-bone ``conspiracy''. I've yet to hear a good explanation for why the ``conspiracy'' was such an eeeee-vil idea. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso 3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 tytso@athena.mit.edu Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same!
roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos) (08/29/89)
> However, because some of us recognize that other people have more > experience and perhaps a better perspective, we will often defer to > those people. ..... and there you have the back-bone ``conspiracy''. Lao Tzu wrote many centuries ago, "the greatest rulers are not seen by the people." -- Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) -- Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL)