noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/02/89)
Now that I have said my piece concerning......
I'll go on record as being in favor of Brad Templeton's suggestion
concerning the site administrators voting on the creation/deletion of
newsgroups.
While the details certainly need to be hacked out, it is in principle
sound and fair to all.
I also strongly agree with Karl, that the ONLY requirement be that the
individual be a site administrator.
Noel
--
Noel B. Del More | {decvax|harvard}!zinn!ubbs-nh!noel
17 Meredith Drive | noel@ubbs-nh.mv.com
Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (04/04/89)
In article <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: >Now that I have said my piece concerning...... > >I'll go on record as being in favor of Brad Templeton's suggestion >concerning the site administrators voting on the creation/deletion of >newsgroups. > >While the details certainly need to be hacked out, it is in principle >sound and fair to all. > >I also strongly agree with Karl, that the ONLY requirement be that the >individual be a site administrator. Be careful -- Brad proposed a 5-member BOARD of people, not necessarially administrators, with prerequisite experience, to decide group policy for the entire network! I backed a proposal for a new "cabal" of administrators, made up of all administrators who care to be a part of it, with the only requirement being that you are an admin. The proposal I agree with would also retain the current news.groups as a discussion board for anyone to post to (thus, hopefully, an admin would pick up the ball from users, and thus ordinary users would have a way to submit proposals without "pestering" their admin). In the case of the proposal I favor, any administrator may "vote". In Brad's proposal, only 5 people get to "vote". -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (04/04/89)
In article <3230@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >I backed a proposal for a new "cabal" of administrators, made up of all >administrators who care to be a part of it, with the only requirement being >that you are an admin. The proposal I agree with would also retain the >current news.groups as a discussion board for anyone to post to (thus, >hopefully, an admin would pick up the ball from users, and thus ordinary >users would have a way to submit proposals without "pestering" their admin). [ Don't trust anyone who calls a USENET newsgroup a `board'. :-) ] I'm all for _some_ collection of guidelines and Brad's seem workable, with a few changes such as the number of members. As others have tried to point out [ and Karl tries to here, sort of I suppose ], five is not large enough of a group. Allowing any and all comers to vote is also wrong, IMHO. The leafs outnumber the rest of us by large margins. Letting the site admins of bazillions of leafs dictate USENET policy will be no better than better than the current situation. >In the case of the proposal I favor, any administrator may "vote". In >Brad's proposal, only 5 people get to "vote". Well, my vote is for `Let them that pays the bills vote for the news groups'. Five is too few. Letting everyone with a Amiga in their living room [ I have a Wyse 3216 in my den :-) ] tell the net what groups to carry just don't seem right. How about 15 or 20, selected from the larger sites. Perhaps a threshhold such as 10 or more newsfeeds would be required for a name to be placed into Brad's hat with some number of names drawn at random periodically from the hat. This has the advantage of being a larger group of people who are both responsible to the sites they feed and the accountable to the people with the bucks. Comments? -- John F. Haugh II +-Quote of the Week:------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Porsche does not recommend InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | exceeding any speed limits" UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +-- -- Porsche Ad ------------
muller@bunter.dg.com (Woody Muller) (04/04/89)
In article <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: > >concerning the site administrators voting on the creation/deletion of >newsgroups. > >While the details certainly need to be hacked out, it is in principle >sound and fair to all. > Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? -- "Standard disclaimers apply!" Woody Muller 919-248-5919(work) 919-544-6783(home)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/04/89)
>Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent >hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How >do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to >site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? They (1) maintain the news system, and more importantly (2) pay the bills. The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/05/89)
>>I backed a proposal for a new "cabal" of administrators, made up of all >>administrators who care to be a part of it, with the only requirement being >>that you are an admin. >Allowing any and all comers to vote is also wrong, IMHO. The leafs >outnumber the rest of us by large margins. Letting the site admins >of bazillions of leafs dictate USENET policy will be no better than >better than the current situation. The purpose of the original backbone cabal was the concept "he who pays the bill says where the money goes" -- and the backbone cabal finally fell apart when the concept of 'backbone' grew so fuzzy that the size of the backbone blossomed and the cabal group grew too large to be effective. I think the original concepts are still valid: the people paying the bills (with time, money and resources) call the shots. Thee should listen to what the net says, but in the final analysis, if it's your pocketbook you do what you feel is best. The other thing is to keep it relatively small. 5 is too small -- 50 is too large. Pick a good number in between. The Original backbone was at least two incoming feeds and three outgoing feeds with at least on long-distance feed. NNTP did that definition in. Anyone fee like building a better definition? You don't ignore NNTP links, because someone distributing via NNTP to 10 sites is doing a lot more than someone distributing one link via telebit trailblazer, even though the cost of the latter is higher. I also don't think you should ignore people who's contributions are other than strictly financial -- Spafford, Mark Horton, Greg, Henry. At least on an advisory basis, the knowledge and experience of these folks shouldn't be poo-poohed. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/05/89)
Is 5 too small? My original thought was 11, but I think that would cause too much noise within UNLAB. As I have always stated, the real principle of usenet "power" (heavy use of quotes) derives from who pays the bills to feed the information around. (Smaller amounts of usenet "power," derived from the above, include that of moderators and authors of networking freeware.) So of course, the decision to carry groups is one that is made by sysadmins of non-leaf sites. I have always said this, although perhaps not as explicitly as that. So we could have a committee of 300 or so site admins. But the question I asked was, "do these site admins *want* to sit on such a committee?" I felt no. I felt such sysadmins would rather delegate that power off to some other people they trust. I do not feel that unreliable polls of general readership were the sort of thing the question should be delegated to. So I thought up the UNLAB idea. It has to be something that sys admins are willing to, most of the time, delegate the initial decision to, something that can make reasonable decisions that people are likely to go along with, and something that people are willing to sit on. It is the last requirement that selected the number 5. I doubt good people would want to sit on a board of 25 members or more, unless discussion was very limited. A number from 5 to 11 allows serious discussion to take place in a friendly atmosphere without swamping the members. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (04/05/89)
In article <3230@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >I backed a proposal for a new "cabal" of administrators, made up of all >administrators who care to be a part of it, with the only requirement being >that you are an admin. I should point out that this has already been tried. It was called "the backbone cabal". When it grew to over 100 people, it became a failure because the more people, the more flames and the harder it is to even determine what the consensus is. Please let's not repeat a previous mistake. A cabal-type group cannot succeed unless membership is severely limited. If we can't find a way to select a membership that most of the net is willing to trust, then the idea is hopeless. --Greg
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (04/05/89)
In article <14681@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes: >Five is too few. Letting everyone with a Amiga in their living room >[ I have a Wyse 3216 in my den :-) ] tell the net what groups to carry >just don't seem right. How about 15 or 20, selected from the larger >sites. Perhaps a threshhold such as 10 or more newsfeeds would be >required for a name to be placed into Brad's hat with some number of >names drawn at random periodically from the hat. Ha. 5 is too few, but 15 or 20 is enough? \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ I do like the idea of "number of newsfeeds" as a threshhold, but I think the feed number should be computed w/o trying to come up with a small number of voting people. What constitutes a feed? A full news feed, or an exchange of news with another site? My idea was to have (the possibilty of) a large number of sysadmins all over the net having input. Most of 'em won't participate, just like they don't partcipate now. But they will be able to if they want, and they won't have to put up with loudmouths at various sites (weemba, where are you these days? :-) who *aren't* admins but know what's "best" for the net. -- J. Eric Townsend | "Type 'make'. If you get errors, stop and fix them." uunet!sugar!flatline!erict | -- Eric S. Raymond, in TMNN documentation. bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (04/05/89)
In article <14681@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes: }Five is too few. Letting everyone with a Amiga in their living room }[ I have a Wyse 3216 in my den :-) ] tell the net what groups to carry }just don't seem right. How about 15 or 20, selected from the larger }sites. Perhaps a threshhold such as 10 or more newsfeeds would be }required for a name to be placed into Brad's hat with some number of }names drawn at random periodically from the hat. There are sites that qualify for the above and live in people's basements. Don't assume that sites that have lot's of leaf sites tied into them are commercial in nature. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
muller@bunter.dg.com (Woody Muller) (04/05/89)
>>Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent >>hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How >>do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to >>site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? > >They (1) maintain the news system, and more importantly (2) pay the bills. >The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say. (1) They *already* maintain the news system. If rec.sex or ...tcp-ip.eniac gets voted in, the site admins *already* have the power to refuse. (2) While most site admins budget money on behalf of their companies for net expenses, one vote per site admin doesn't necessarily bring us any closer to an equitable distribution of power. Some sites spend little, other sites spend a lot. Site admins already have the final say. -- "Standard disclaimers apply!" Woody Muller 919-248-5919(work) 919-544-6783(home)
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (04/05/89)
In article <14681@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes: > [Much interesting stuff deleted] How about 15 or 20, selected from the larger > sites. Perhaps a threshhold such as 10 or more newsfeeds would be > required for a name to be placed into Brad's hat with some number of > names drawn at random periodically from the hat. Are there actually 15 to 20 people who meet your criterion of 10 or more news feeds, and would actualy WANT to do this? And how do you propose to determine who has that many feeds? I am feeding 2 sites right now, but I just got my NNTP server going very recently, so I expect that number to go up in the near future, as I start feeding sites on campus here at KU. Since we are not a UUCP site (this is a VMS system, no UUCP available, yet) I am not in the maps, and was told that it was not appropiate to have a map entry. Suppose I get up to 10 feeds, and am crazy enough to want to be on your board (cabal?), how do I convince you I am really feeding 10 sites? +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | Bob Sloane \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is | | Computer Center \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET / my opinion, not my | | University of Kansas\ AT&T: (913) 864-0444 / employer's. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/05/89)
In article <28368@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent >>hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How >>do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to >>site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? > >They (1) maintain the news system, and more importantly (2) pay the bills. >The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say. Apply this logic to the "real" world. You are familiar with the word "plutocracy" I presume? -- Dave Mack
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (04/06/89)
In article <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes:
)I also strongly agree with Karl, that the ONLY requirement be that the
)individual be a site administrator.
)Noel
Fine. Define site adminsitrator.
At my previous job I had root access. That makes me a site
administrator, right?
But... I had root access because I did backups. Occationally
I answered questions. I had zilch to say (officially) about USENET on
the system.
I don't have root access here. I don't *need* it, it isn't
in my job description. I am responcible for fielding the questions
and complaints of the 2000+ users on Phoenix and one of the Sun clusters,
I track USENET usage and helped get arbitron up and running on phoenix.
So am I a system administrator here?
I'm also a very heavy user of the net, in terms of reading and
posting.
I also did most of my undergraduate work studying USENET. I
continue to collect data for further study when time permits.
Which of these aspects, which of these different people, should
have a voice in the running of the net?
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
Love is wanting to keep more than one person happy.dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) (04/06/89)
In article <28368@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent > >hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How > >do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to > >site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? > > They (1) maintain the news system, and more importantly (2) pay the bills. > The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say. True, site admins maintain the news system on their machines, but in most cases, they probably do not pay the bills (do you pay the bills at Apple? or does somebody in some other department?). This is not a flame. I am just using you as an example, cause your company is fairly well known. If Apple is a publicly held company (I am not sure), it has share holders who aren't even employees, who have a say in how the money should get spent. It definately has a board of directors which has a say. If it is like most large corporations, it has a president, chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and/or treasurer. They all have some say as to how the money is spent. As a sys admin, you may get to fill out a requisition form, and request that an item gets purchased. In no way is this paying the bills. Chances are, the officers I mentioned probably do not even know that Apple is on USENET! (although, I am willing to admit that I may be wrong on this matter, not being an Apple employee). Also, Apple is large enough where they probably have an Accounting Department, or maybe even an Account's Payable Department (which actually pays the bills). Do you cut the check to the phone company or do they? Do they have access to USENET? Do they even know what USENET is? Just to make sure this doesn't come across as a flame about Chuq, I will also use the company I work for as an example. We have around a dozen employees in two offices (one in NY and one in CA). Engineering consists of about 1/4 the company, manufacturing about 1/4, and sales/marketing/finance/misc. about 1/2. Most of the people know about USENET. Only about 1/3 has ever logged in and read any news. I am the only regular news reader here. I also administer 4-5 other machines which we have in house, am one of three people who requisitions hardware, and am one of two who requisitions software (this is as a system's administrator, not as a news administrator -- different hats). As a news administrator, the only thing that I ever requested was a TB+ modem to replace our 1200 baud Hayes. About 1/2 of all hardware I request (mostly as system's administrator) is declined (by the person who signs the checks), the other half is accepted. In no way will I say that I pay the bills here. I doubt that the person who writes our checks will care one way or another which news groups are on the machine (she never logs in, doesn't even have an account). I doubt that my boss (who is also the company president) would have any say, unless it were a group that directly affected him (such as creation of a group discussing graphics hardware or a group discussing the N10 -- he's a hardware type, and does read news occasionally). Although as a news site, we eat up the same capacity as Apple does (forgetting the other net related things that Apple does like feeding other sites, but both of us have full feeds) (disk requirements to support news are probably about the same, obviously our phone bill will be less, and we probably have fewer modems on the system), and the administration of the news software is about the same (although taking care of the users is a lot less :-)), I don't feel our site should have as much say in newsgroup creation/removal as Apple does. For reference, at my last job, I was systems admin for 2 systems with about 30-35 users each and supported the admin of another site with about 50 (I think) users. I was also the news administrator there for about two months (on two of the machines for one month, all three machines for the second month), so I have some idea of middle sized system admining. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Gotwisner UUCP: ...!unisoft!peritek!dig Peritek Corporation ...!vsi1!peritek!dig 5550 Redwood Road Oakland, CA 94619 Phone: 1-415-531-6500
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (04/06/89)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) wrote: > I think the original concepts are still valid: the people paying the bills > (with time, money and resources) call the shots. > > The Original backbone was at least two incoming feeds and three outgoing > feeds with at least on long-distance feed. NNTP did that definition in. > Anyone fee like building a better definition? You don't ignore NNTP links, > because someone distributing via NNTP to 10 sites is doing a lot more than > someone distributing one link via telebit trailblazer, even though the cost > of the latter is higher. > > I also don't think you should ignore people who's contributions are other > than strictly financial -- Spafford, Mark Horton, Greg, Henry. It's funny how we're busy reinventing the Backbone Cabal. What was that about "if God did not exist, man would find it necessary to create him"? Anyway, it's a fair concept. How about saying that the Backbone Cabal shall consist of all sites who exchange more than N megabytes of news per day? NNTP links tend to be partial feeds, and are accordingly derated. N can be adjusted if the Cabal grows too big, and you can use a long sampling time to keep things steady. The Backbone Cabal are welcome to invite in others whose opinions are respected, although some protocol should be worked out to ensure people are automatically kicked out. That was the reason the Cabal folded - because there was no way to shrink it below the flamage threshold. Adding some simple algorithm (if x people become eligible for Cabal measurement, N shall be recomputed to reduce the cabal to y) would help prevent this. Maybe someone can suggest a better one? -- -Colin (uunet!microsoft!w-colinp) "Don't listen to me. I never do." - The Doctor
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/06/89)
>True, site admins maintain the news system on their machines, but in most >cases, they probably do not pay the bills (do you pay the bills at Apple? >or does somebody in some other department?). That's a good question. I'm not involved in the administration of the news machine at Apple at all, so by my own definitions of who should and shouldn't be part of the cabal, I wouldn't be... >If Apple is a publicly held company (I am not sure), it has share holders >who aren't even employees, who have a say in how the money should get >spent. You're nitpicking to a bit. Yes, this is all true, however the spending power is delegated down the management chain to a certain level, and above that level management doesn't care how the money is spent as long as the justifications are there and the budget isn't exceeded. Joyn Sculley, for instance, doesn't care (or even know) if I buy a hard disk for my IIx -- it's up to my manager to approve it and make sure the money exists in the budget. We're not talking about theoretical "who's in charge" things -- we're talking about the real-world of operational responsibility. The sysadmin is the person who has operational responsibility for USENET, and either they (or their manager) have the budgetary responsibility. It's not who signs the check -- it's whose budget the check is allocated to. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/06/89)
>It's funny how we're busy reinventing the Backbone Cabal. What was that >about "if God did not exist, man would find it necessary to create him"? I don't think it's funny -- the Cabal *worked* for a couple of years. While the Cabal was working, the net made much progress (the Great Renaming, the newsgroup voting regimen as just two major examples) in a relatively peaceful way. It was when the Cabal stopped working -- and it stopped primarily because it became too easy to join the Cabal and it got too big to function effectively -- that we started having these problems again. So I don't see any problem with re-inventing the Cabal, as long as it takes into consideration what made the last one ultimately fall apart and look for ways of avoiding it. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/06/89)
In article <28368@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent >>hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How >>do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to >>site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? > >They (1) maintain the news system, and more importantly (2) pay the bills. >The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say. The people who own AND use their systems, AND who serve as a major news hub, I'd agree, but the rest of the administrators are (no disrespect intended) just caretakers. This sounds to me a little like letting the guy who drives the train determine where the track gets laid. -- ``How do you like my new cordless phone ?'' ``What ?'' richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) (04/07/89)
In article <7593@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: >In article <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: >)I also strongly agree with Karl, that the ONLY requirement be that the >)individual be a site administrator. >)Noel > > Fine. Define site adminsitrator. > Exactly the problem. I believe it's not definable in a way which could achieve the desired results, without disenfranchising "legitimate" sites. I currently operate a 6 Mbyte 16Mhz 386 based PC under various operating systems, including UNIX, at different times. I chose to read news by using this machine as a terminal into one of our VAXen. I am thus not a USENET SA in my current configuration. I could just as easily configure this machine or another in my group, as an independant USENET site, and suck news and mail in from the VAX either over our LAN or over the PABX at 9600 baud, and provide a private USENET service to my group. I could even pass that data on to other machines in my department, so that I appeared on the maps as a feed rather than a leaf, with perhaps 20 or thirty readers. I could also chose to transfer this whole operation to my 386SX machine at home, with minimum effort, so that I didn't appear as a sub-machine within the same local network. > Which of these aspects, which of these different people, should >have a voice in the running of the net? > Which simple action like the ones above would I take to ensure a voice in the organization of the net? How many others would do the same? How many single user PC nodes would suddenly start feeding arbitron false data? -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) (04/07/89)
> I'm all for _some_ collection of guidelines and Brad's seem workable, > with a few changes such as the number of members. ... > ... How about 15 or 20, selected from the larger sites. > > Perhaps a threshhold such as 10 or more newsfeeds would be > required for a name to be placed into Brad's hat with some number of > names drawn at random periodically from the hat. Personally, I think 5 is just right, and the next best number would be 7, because small even numbers are obviously undesirable. But I *don't* think that drawing people's names at random is a good idea. I think that *this* is the place where net voting is appropriate. Yes, I'm suggesting that representative government come to the net. Well, "government" in a limited sense, anyway... having only the power to control the newsgroup namespace (and then only in comp, sci, and the other 5 top divisions; for these purposes alt, bionet, biz, and suchlike are best considered as not being part of "the net" at all). I suggest that people suitably qualified to be on UNLAB should, if they feel so inclined, volunteer their names in nomination; after a discussion period someone should accept mailed votes; and the 5 winners form the initial UNLAB for a fixed term of 6 months, after which the whole business repeats. (Alternatively the terms could be staggered, but then we'd see election campaigns more often.) Something like 2 weeks for discussion and 2 for voting seems right to me. Yes, I'm aware that the "discussion period" might consist of personality flames, but we'd get those anyway whether we admitted to it in the plans or not. I would say that anybody who has been reading the net for 2 or 3 years should be considered "suitably qualified" to be on UNLAB, and anybody who reads news.groups should be eligible to vote. People who think that UNLAB membership should be restricted to major news site admins, or the like, should indicate this by voting only for such people. But volunteering to be nominated is an important requirement. Oh, one detail -- the form of the vote. I would say that every voter should have the chance to vote For or Against every candidate, rather than the system of "vote for any N candidates where N is the number to be elected". (Note that people could abstain from voting on any particular candidate.) Then for each candidate the number Against is subtracted from the number For, and the highest result wins. -- Mark Brader, Toronto "Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com than it is anywhere else." -- Henry Spencer This article is in the public domain.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/07/89)
Sigh. I don't like this game. But... If you REALLY want representative democracy, why not go all-out? Decide how big the cabal should be, a minimum and maximum size. (I'd suggest 11-21 people). Decide how many votes should get a person into the cabal. (N) Get a bunch of people to run for the Cabal. Evceryone's elected at large. Get thee a vote counter. Post an article to news.announce.important. Collect votes. Everyone with more than N votes is in. If this leaves a Cabal too large or too small, adjust N until it fits. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) (04/07/89)
In article <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM>, noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: > Now that I have said my piece concerning...... > > I'll go on record as being in favor of Brad Templeton's suggestion > concerning the site administrators voting on the creation/deletion of > newsgroups. > I also strongly agree with Karl, that the ONLY requirement be that the > individual be a site administrator. > > Noel That brings up something someone else mentioned. Do 'sites' that are just a PC in someone's bedroom get the same vote as 'sites' that are a network of 10s or 100s of business systems with 100s or 1000s of users? Maybe there should be two 'voting committees', one that is one vote per site, and one that is 1 vote per every n systems. Both 'committees' would have to ratify a vote before the issue was deemed to have passed. And maybe there should be a 'chairperson' who would have the last word and could over-rule the two 'committees'. And maybe there could be a provision that if the 'chairperson' vetoed the vote of the two groups, the groups could over-rule the 'chairperson' with some super majority vote. And how about terminals, shouldn't they be counted as at least some percent of a full site? What about dumb terminal vs smart terminals? And aren't some smart terminals better than others? Tom, Ben... get in here. I think we may have something. Why don't you write this up? Don't forget to put in something about individual and site's rights issues. BTW, should we address the issue of standing armies? -- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261
tjw@cisunx.UUCP (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (04/07/89)
In article <28368@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say. Yea! Only land owners should have the right to vote! ;-) Terry J. Wood -- (UUCP) {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore, cadre}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (or) TJW@PITTUNIX (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW (or) 33801::TJW (or) CISUNX::tjw (or) 33802::tjw
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (04/07/89)
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) writes:
Are there actually 15 to 20 people who meet your criterion of 10 or
more news feeds, and would actualy WANT to do this?
There almost certainly are. When I made my (failed) attempt at a
replacement `backbone mailing list' last October, there were quite a
few folks from `major' multifeed sites. There were about 30 people on
the list, and perhaps half of them qualified as `major.'
And how do you propose to determine who has that many feeds?
Look at their sys file. (You don't want to see mine. :-) You'll have
to trust them far enough that, when shown a sys file, you believe that
it represents connections truthfully.
Suppose I get up to 10 feeds, and am crazy enough to want to be on
your board (cabal?)?
That depends on how important news operation is to your site. It's
positively essential to mine, so I, for one, would be interested - if
I were convinced of the advisability of doing so, which is not (yet) a
fact. My experience from last October does not give me confidence,
unless the size of the group were *severely* restricted. The
suggestions for 5 might work pretty well. Anything larger than 10 is
doomed from the start.
Cruising comfortably
at 45 newsfeeds,
--Karlnoel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/07/89)
In article <3045@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Is 5 too small? My original thought was 11, but I think that would >cause too much noise within UNLAB. Any attempt to limit "membership" to 5 or 11 or any limited number is totally wrong. If "membership" is to be limited at all, it should be limited to site administrators, regardless of site, size, geographic location etc. >As I have always stated, the real principle of usenet "power" (heavy use >of quotes) derives from who pays the bills to feed the information around. >(Smaller amounts of usenet "power," derived from the above, include >that of moderators and authors of networking freeware.) Right! and no matter what, thats the way it will remain. >So of course, the decision to carry groups is one that is made by sysadmins >of non-leaf sites. I have always said this, although perhaps not as >explicitly as that. I'm a so-called "leaf" site, but I pass mail, feed others etc. I'm to be excluded because I'm not running a mainframe? >So we could have a committee of 300 or so site admins. But the question >I asked was, "do these site admins *want* to sit on such a committee?" > >I felt no. I felt such sysadmins would rather delegate that power off >to some other people they trust. I do not feel that unreliable polls >of general readership were the sort of thing the question should be >delegated to. So I thought up the UNLAB idea. Who's holding the gun to their heads? I'm beginning to like my two tier idea more and more. The usenet readership at large votes for the establishment or removal of a newsgroup. The vote is then passed to the "cabal" as a recommendation, who then vote collectively on the issue. No guns, site administrators who desire to be involved in the process merely vote, no registration, no limitations on "membership" etc. Authetication of the site administrators "right" to vote could be done by ensuring that the vote is posted by "root" or "news" etc. Yes, someone does have to validate and count the votes, some bogus ones are sure to slip in but I doubt it would be a significant number. And their would be no need for discussion among the site administrators. The discussion having already taken place by the users. Just a yeah/nay vote. >It is the last requirement that selected the number 5. I doubt good >people would want to sit on a board of 25 members or more, unless >discussion was very limited. A number from 5 to 11 allows serious >discussion to take place in a friendly atmosphere without swamping >the members. I doubt that 5 or 25 could ever truly discuss anything in a "friendly" environment. Let the users vote, argue, flame etc. Let the site administrators as a whole decide! Noel -- Noel B. Del More | {decvax|harvard}!zinn!ubbs-nh!noel 17 Meredith Drive | noel@ubbs-nh.mv.com Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/07/89)
In article <7593@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > Fine. Define site adminsitrator. You miss the whole point that I am trying to make. IF it is to be changed, then I want my say. Just as you and most of the readers want their say. I don't claim to have all of the answers, what is a site administrator? I suppose that it should/could be defined as those that have the responsibility of either administering the system and/or the news. Noel -- Noel B. Del More | {decvax|harvard}!zinn!ubbs-nh!noel 17 Meredith Drive | noel@ubbs-nh.mv.com Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents
ab4@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (A. M. Boardman) (04/08/89)
In article <28368@apple.Apple.COM> Chuq writes: >>Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent >>hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How >>do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to >>site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? > >They (1) maintain the news system, and more importantly (2) pay the bills. >The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say. Let's deal with #2 first, taking this site as an example. There are 782 student accounts, with a fee attached to each for each fall/spring/summer that the account is active, supposedly paying for all normal maintenance costs. The university I am told pays for major equiptment expenditures. The news admins are employees, and in no way "pay the bills". Most (all?) major site admins are employees rather than owners of their system, where system support fees come either from the users in some way (often the case at *.edu), or from a nebulous bureaucracy which thinks that a Usenet is something to catch Uses with. The users are the ones with the proverbial checkbooks in most places. For #1 -- why give the people who maintain the news system even more work? -- if they are just employees, see refutation of #2 above, and if it's a private system, why the hell is the admin giving people accounts when he doesn't want them using the system? -- define news admin, anyway - again taking this site as an example, you've got a whole slew of admin types, and even a two digit number of root accounts. How do you determine which one is THE administrator?? Andrew Boardman, student at large ab4@cunixc.columbia.edu ab4@cunixc.bitnet uunet/rutgers!columbia!cunixc!ab4
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/08/89)
In article <1989Apr7.030958.11143@sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >But I *don't* think that drawing people's names at random is a good idea. >I think that *this* is the place where net voting is appropriate. I proposed random selection quite deliberately. The few attempts I have seen at elections on usenet have not been what I would call successes. In fact, the whole problem with rigidly defined newsgroup voting is that in every vote, there will be a minor violation, and somebody always jumps up and rants about it. If UNLAB is elected, that will give it a greater illusion of democratic power. People will look to it to make other decisions. It will somehow been seen to "represent" usenet in some way. I oppose that concept. UNLAB will be a body picked to do a _job_, not an authority group elected to a position of power. They will be there to help me pick the groups to carry on my machine, not to represent "the people." The fact is that I run my site, you run your site and nobody is ever going to change that. I don't even approve of the illusion of changing it. UNLAB's "power" (really influence) will come, and should always come, from the fact that people are willing to use the newsgroup list they produce. It should not ever pretend to come from somewhere else, such as the fact that it was somehow elected. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jon@jonlab.UUCP (Jon H. LaBadie) (04/08/89)
In article <14681@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes: > > I'm all for _some_ collection of guidelines and Brad's seem workable, > with a few changes such as the number of members. As others have > tried to point out [ and Karl tries to here, sort of I suppose ], > five is not large enough of a group. > > Allowing any and all comers to vote is also wrong, IMHO. The leafs > outnumber the rest of us by large margins. Letting the site admins > of bazillions of leafs dictate USENET policy will be no better than > better than the current situation. > We could establish the 5 member board as a representative anarchy. Select the delegate system admins using a logrithmic apportionment based on readership. For example, the 5 members might be chosen, 1 each from the group of sys admins who administer sites of 0 - 3 readers 4 - 10 readers 11 - 30 readers 30 - 100 readers > 100 readers What could be fairer than that? BTW who gets to maintain the list of sys admin's from which the board is randomly chosen? Can I volunter ;-) -- Jon LaBadie {att, princeton, bcr}!jonlab!jon {att, attmail, bcr}!auxnj!jon
dave@norsat.UUCP (Dave Binette) (04/08/89)
System Administartors while being very capable people, do not overall represent
the broad scope and interests that other users embrace.
#define SERIOUS 0
why not restrict ALL net postings for the next month or two, to those articles
posted exclusivley by SA's and see how we like the results?
#undef SERIOUS
I expect that while the net would be slightly more controlled, the content
would be rather dry.
The USERS of the net are the greatest asset, NOT the net itself. I think that
usenet is wallowing in its own sense of self-importance, and ought to consider
that while management of resources is neccessary, we should not disenfranchise
the real resource that we have tapped; the individuals contribution. And in my
world at least, that includes the right to vote.
--
---
usenet: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!norsat!dave (Dave Binette)
bbs: (604) 597 4361 3/12/24/PEP
voice: (604) 597 6298rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (04/08/89)
In article <3062@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >I proposed random selection quite deliberately. The few attempts I have >seen at elections on usenet have not been what I would call successes. Just as in politics, you don't want a person who actually *wants* the job -- they are likely to have a predefined agenda. Presidents and Usenet Usurpers: both should be *drafted*. -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2 PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2 uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. |submission forms. jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp
dave@pmafire.UUCP (Dave Remien) (04/09/89)
In article <548@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes:
=Tom, Ben... get in here. I think we may have something. Why don't you
=write this up? Don't forget to put in something about individual and site's
=rights issues. BTW, should we address the issue of standing armies?
And about the right to bear flame-throwers..... <(8-)
Dave Remien - WINCO Computer Eng. Group -uunet!pmafire!dave- "Let's just look
at the extras on your new car - wire wheel spoke fenders, two way sneeze
through wind vents, stars and mudguards, chrome fender dents, and factory air
conditioned air, from our fully factory equipped airconditioned factory."dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (04/09/89)
In article <3739@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
#Sigh. I don't like this game. But...
#If you REALLY want representative democracy, why not go all-out?
#Get a bunch of people to run for the Cabal. Evceryone's elected at large.
#Everyone with more than N votes is in. If this leaves a Cabal too large
#or too small, adjust N until it fits.
No, that's not a fair voting system. Do the vote by STV (Single Transferable
Vote) - voters vote in 1,2,3,4,... preference, if n votes cast, for P places,
then anyone with > (n/P + 1) first-preference votes is elected.
Surplus votes are transfered to second (etc.) choice candidate. If not
enough people are elected, lowest vote candidate dropped and their next
preference transfered. And so on. It's the fairest system for both
candidates and voters. Hard work to count without computer assistance,
but we should have that.
While we're at it we'd better adopt a Constitution. I'm quite good at
writing them, but as we do have a few real lawyers on the net one of
them should do it. While we're at it, lets set up Usenet Inc as a
world-wide non-profit corporation (need a bit more legal effort to make
it work, but if you're going to do a job, do it properly). Then
Usenet Inc can charge everyone for news feeds etc., charge a membership
fee, employ full time staff who administer the net, and a Chief Executive
who will decide whether new news groups are justified, and ensure that
only suitable sites connect to the net.
That way we'll be Properly Organised, and a really Professional Organsisation
too. And of course it will stop all the controversy, argument, flaming
and so on which is such a pain on the present net - after all, Usenet Inc can
cut off any user/site that doesn't follow the rules, which are after all
for our own good.
Or we could just keep our present anarchy with its polls of users to create
groups by agreed concensus. It's worked so far (usually) !
Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to
any question than one does. Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.simon@cheshire (Thor Simon) (04/09/89)
Here's an idea I would have thought would have been thrown around before (and please excuse my mistake if it has): A Democratically Elected Government For example: Once a year, nominations are held, followed by elections. Any person placing their name on the "ballot", to be posted in news.admin o perhaps "news.elections"? And recieving a predetermined number of nominating signatures would automatically be placed on an election ballot. This would be followed by an election, perhaps organized by congressional district, state, or other geographical distribution. Of course, all votes and nominations would have to be reasonably screened (i.e. I couldn't vote from X.cs.coulmbia.edu, X1.cs.columbia.edu, X3.cs.columbia.edu, etc., and perhaps not from sites with feeds from coulmbia (e.g. my Amiga if I were running UUCP)) This group would vote on newsgroup creations, etc., perhaps presided over by an elected leader with overrideable veto power. Comments? Thor
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/09/89)
In article <4873@xyzzy.UUCP> muller@dg-rtp.dg.com (Woody Muller) writes: >Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent >hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How >do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to >site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"? Would you argue then it is fairer to put your complete and absolute trust in five people? You are absolutely correct, however, which is why I proposed a two tier voting scheme. The users vote, the site administrators vote. I never claimed to have the answers to usenet's "problem", if in deed one even exists. Noel -- Noel B. Del More | {decvax|harvard}!zinn!ubbs-nh!noel 17 Meredith Drive | noel@ubbs-nh.mv.com Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/10/89)
You're right. The Australian System would be better. If we're gonna be stupid, at least we should be smart about it. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) (04/26/89)
In article <622@pmafire.UUCP> dave@pmafire.UUCP (Dave Remien) writes: >- "Let's just look >at the extras on your new car - wire wheel spoke fenders, two way sneeze >through wind vents, stars and mudguards, chrome fender dents, and factory air >conditioned air, from our fully factory equipped airconditioned factory." Ahh! Climate Control! Squeeze him, maybe he'll pass another one! -- Jim Benz jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu If a modem University of Pittsburgh answers, UCIR (412) 648-5930 hang up!