brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/28/89)
I feel all this talk about refinement of the current procedure misses the point. The current procedure isn't working at all, in my opinion. What good does it do to refine it and add more bureaucracy? Let's review the purpose of the current procedure. Newsgroup carrying is, of course, done by net admins. Net admins need a convenient system to help them decide, usually as a group, what newsgroups are worth carrying on their machines. The procedure should make good suggestions, be quick and efficient, and not itself generate excessive net traffic. But remember that the procedure only gives advice to sysadmins, nothing more. The procedure should avoid wasteful groups, and at the same time convince champions of impractical groups that it is not worth their effort to fill the net with flamage to push their opinion. Surveys (incorrectly called votes in this group) were instituted to find out something about net opinion on newsgroups, and most importantly to shut up newsgroup champions when a survey goes against them. Why is the current system not working? It has become a messy bureacracy. The whole beauty of anarchy has been spoiled: A) Things aren't being quieted, they are noisier. A 6-8 week period of discussion and voting. Endless calls for votes and repeated calls. B) We get endless involvement in technicalities, as though these were binding votes instead of just advisories for admins. People yell if a vote is 29 days 23 hours instead of 30 days. They yell if their all important 'vote' doesn't make it for bounced mail. C) The process takes too long. 2 months, usually. This is supposed to be efficient? D) It makes people think this is a democracy, when it isn't. One person even thought you could hold a vote to dictate "official usenet policy." E) The surveys aren't that meaningful. They are posed and collected by heavily biased poll-takers. They come from a self-selected set of respondants whose only qualification is that they have enough free time to read news.groups. :-) They are further biased by repeated 'calls for votes' when the pollster is not satisfied with the results. I say, down with bureacracy on usenet. Down with endless finely tuned rules and poking at technicalities. Sorry to those folks who designed it, but I say scrap it. Replace it with what? The next posting says. If you have a real replacement, let's hear yours, too. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/28/89)
In the previous article, I described how I feel the current system misses the whole mark, and how I think we need a new one. Here's one. It's just a proposal. Remember, what we want is a way for sysadmins to decide what groups to carry. That's the ultimate decision making process of usenet, and any guidelines must be based on that. I propose the creation of the 'Usenet Newsgroup List Advisory Board' (UNLAB). Unlab would consist of 5 people drawn from a pool. Each month, the oldest member of the board (the chair) would rotate off and a new person would rotate on. Nobody would control the board or be able to stay on it for long. The board will give advice on what groups should be created and deleted. It's decisions would be by a vote of the 5, majority wins. The board would be restricted to decisions on newsgroup creation/deletion and the apointment of new moderators for new groups or groups where the moderator has abdicated without a successor. In fact, I would advise that the members of UNLAB be prohibited from expressing an opinion on the net on questions of "how the net should be run" that have a boardmember's name attached. (Instead, they could still post anonymous opinions, and of course, send mail.) Now I see two ways for UNLAB to give its advice on changes to the newsgroup list. 1) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB. If they are unanimous, the group is created, by them, after a short discussion. If they are not unanimous, UNLAB holds a survey. The question, written by the UNLAB chair, is posted to "news.groups," a MODERATED group. Survey replies go to an automatic counting program run by UNLAB on an central machine. The survey lasts as long as UNLAB wants, I would suggest 14 days is plenty. It's just a survey. UNLAB examines the survey results as they see fit. No hard and fast rules, although general guidelines like the ones we have now might guide their decisions. They vote. Majority decides. or 2) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB. Unless they are unanimously AGAINST it, it gets created. (If they are unanimously against, a survey might be taken if the applicant appeals.) The groups is create on a trial basis. A set of randomly selected arbitron running sites will send arbitron reports to UNLAB officials. If the readership reaches suitable levels (decided by UNLAB, but the same for all groups) within 4-6 months, the group stays. Otherwise the axe falls. Remember, no problem deleting groups as UNLAB can do that easily. My suggestion of a criterion for readership is that the group have 1 reader per long distance link in the subnet in which it exists. Anything less is more efficient with a mailing list. Deletion: If Unlab is unanimous for deletion on an established group for 5 months, it's history. (This is a complete rotation of the UNLAB membership.) Membership: UNLAB membership would be open to sysadmins with 3 or more years of usenet experience. Each new member would be drawn from a pool of volunteers. The drawing would be random, and done by a non-member who has signed an oath to execute the choices randomly. (Or pseudo randomly, since it would be done by software.) Now I personally, as a sysadmin, would trust this more than the random, self-selected, biased noisy polls we see now. What about you? Think of it. No noise, no arguments, no sticky procedure. I will write up a formal set of rules for the board later if people like this idea. Note that when I say 'formal set of rules,' I refer to the rules for UNLAB membership. The actual decision process must remain flexible. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/29/89)
Brad is being a loose cannon again: In article <3010@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > The current procedure isn't working at all, in my opinion. What good > does it do to refine it and add more bureaucracy? The current procedure works just fine, if you bother to follow it. The objections raised by this article are, by and large, without foundation. The amount of argument about technicalities is minimal. The majority of calls for votes are due to people not reading the rules. Nitpicking will always be with us. If it takes 6 or 8 weeks, what of it? > Replace it with what? The next posting says. If you have a real > replacement, let's hear yours, too. alt.dev.null? -- 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.
fireman@tippy.uucp (03/29/89)
I really like your first idea. The second idea falls because of lack of
user input. Using a recent example, the REC.HAM-SWAP vote, if the 5
members know nothing about amatuer radio, it probably would be voted down
because the sysadmins wouldn't want the space used. Other than that,
I feel your proposal if very well written, and I hope to see other
supportive comments as time goes by.
Rob Dale + tippy!fireman@newton.physics.purdue.edudave@norsat.UUCP (Dave Binette) (03/29/89)
In article <3010@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I feel all this talk about refinement of the current procedure misses >the point. > >The current procedure isn't working at all, in my opinion. What good >does it do to refine it and add more bureaucracy? > >Replace it with what? The next posting says. If you have a real >replacement, let's hear yours, too. I am so glad you asked! Well for what its worth (and I do not have a broad perspective on the implications of this, not being familiar with the diverse implimentations of news gathering/reading software available) here are my suggestions. 1) A survey asking people why they want a new newsgroup is not needed. A yes or no vote is sufficient. 2) it must be very easy and quick to vote (once). 3) It must post results. 4) It must be automatic. 5) The initial request for creation should be moderated. (to prevent duplication of same group creation requests) 6) The moderators denial to authorize a creation request must be published. Those are the basic tennets of my proposal, brief scheme follows. The moderator shall be ELECTED, subject to review, and well connected. The moderator will receive e-mail from a net user proposing creation of a newsgroup. If the newsgroup exists or is in the process of being voted on or if its a proposal that has been rejected within the last 3 months it will be rejected and the net so informed. The proposer will provide information including: 1) The proposers mail address. 2) The name of the group 3) The proposed distribution. 4) The reason the group is being proposed 5) description of the groups content, use, intent, caveats, and the "do's and don'ts" of the newsgroup. 6) expirary date of the newsgroup itself. 7) the entire proposal must be short! ( 50 lines MAXIMUM ) (I prefer a database format with #directive lines.) The moderator shall include a cutoff date for collection of votes which shall not be less than 7 days or more than 21 days. That information will, at the hands of the moderator, be posted to the net. Upon receipt of a vote request, a user may cast a simple YES or NO vote for the creation of the newsgroup. the result of the vote will be automatically forwarded to the moderator and a monitor. At the end of the voting period the results will be posted by the moderator and will show the id and yes or no vote of each valid response and the total of the two votes. The monitor will post a totals of the two votes. If the results are reasonably consistent (allowances for connectivity etc). and the result favors creation, the ORIGINAL person who proposed the newsgroup may issue a newgroup control request. Both the monitor and the moderator will e-mail the results to the person who proposed the creation of the newsgroup and clearly state the status of the vote saying: The vote for the creation of "...newsgroup..." has been taken, and the consensus is (either YES or NO) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Well thats my proposal. By making it EASY and QUICK to vote, its my gut feeling that the yes/no ratios will be much more accurate. This whole thing can be handled by a handful of simple programs to manage the process. -- --- usenet: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!norsat!dave (Dave Binette) bbs: (604) 597 4361 3/12/24/PEP voice: (604) 597 6298
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/30/89)
In article <3011@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In the previous article, I described how I feel the current system misses >the whole mark, and how I think we need a new one. Here's one. It's >just a proposal. > >Remember, what we want is a way for sysadmins to decide what groups to >carry. That's the ultimate decision making process of usenet, and any >guidelines must be based on that. No, it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other issues that need to be resolved with regards to the net. Your "unlab" proposal seems to be a seed for controversy, not a way to get a consensus from the net administrators. I'm brewing a slightly different idea; one which has the "voice of the net" assigned to those who have to answer for the actions that are taken. Specifically, this refers to the administrators of net sites -- those who have to either (1) pay the bills for keeping the net going, or (2) have to answer (either formally or informally) to those who do pay the bills. Once I've got something a little more concrete (what's up in the head right now is too shaky to propose formally, or to take to the net for comment) I'll post it. Suffice it to say that it's being discussed among a small group of people at present, and being refined into something that may be workable. -- 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.
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (03/30/89)
In article <3010@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Replace it with what? The next posting says. If you have a real >replacement, let's hear yours, too. Not having read the next posting... A cabal. Not a backbone cabal, but a siteadmin cabal. A mailing list limited to "root", "postmaster" and "usenet" at each site on the Usenet. Anyone wanting a new newsgroup would have to convince a site's usenet admin (needn't be their *own* siteadmin, just any site admin) to bring it up on the mailing list. Site admins would "vote" on newgroup creation, with the vote count/names posted to news.admin (or wherever). Summaries of mailing list traffic could be regularly posted to news.whatever. It probably has some holes, but it seems sound at 0245hrs. 1/2 :-) -- J. Eric Townsend | Skate UNIX or die, segmented memory suckers! uunet!sugar!flatline!erict bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (03/30/89)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) said:
-
-Let's review the purpose of the current procedure. Newsgroup carrying
-is, of course, done by net admins. Net admins need a convenient system
-to help them decide, usually as a group, what newsgroups are worth carrying
-on their machines.
There can't be any. The net is made up of individuals, not of robots. The
sys and net admins you're talking about work in completely different
environments. The admin policies at a Detroit automaker are going to
be different than those of the news admin at MIT, or Big Electric Cat, or
any number of machines owned by individuals (to name a couple of examples).
The word "convenient" should never be used to complement the phrase
"group decision". Group decisions (democracy, republics, consensus) is
a messy way to run something. All it does is make sure that everyone
(or a majority) is equally unsatisfied.
-Replace it with what? The next posting says. If you have a real
-replacement, let's hear yours, too.
Replace it? WHY? It may not be working perfectly, but it *is* working.
Leave well enough alone.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO. davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (03/30/89)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) said:
-
-I propose the creation of the 'Usenet Newsgroup List Advisory Board' (UNLAB).
-Unlab would consist of 5 people drawn from a pool. Each month, the oldest
-member of the board (the chair) would rotate off and a new person
-would rotate on. Nobody would control the board or be able to stay on
-it for long.
5 people to decide what an audiance of tens of thousands of people will
read? What ever happened to input from outside sources? Also, if you
keep rotating people in, rather than get a stabilizing force for the net
(as you seem to want), you'll start to get a constantly changing policy
from UNLAB.
-Now I see two ways for UNLAB to give its advice on changes to the
-newsgroup list.
-
- 1) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB. If they are unanimous,
- the group is created, by them, after a short discussion.
-
- If they are not unanimous, UNLAB holds a survey. The question,
- written by the UNLAB chair, is posted to "news.groups," a MODERATED
- group. Survey replies go to an automatic counting program
- run by UNLAB on an central machine. The survey lasts as long as
- UNLAB wants, I would suggest 14 days is plenty. It's just a
- survey.
-
- UNLAB examines the survey results as they see fit. No hard and
- fast rules, although general guidelines like the ones we have
- now might guide their decisions. They vote. Majority decides.
Ok...here we encounter a number of points I disagree with.
1) You're giving an advisory board powers over the creation of newsgroups
for the entire net? I don't want to depend on the whim of whichever 5
people happen to be in charge at the time.
2) news.groups should NOT be moderated. Yes, there is a lot of volume here,
but there's also a lot of feedback and good ideas for what groups might be
good, might be bad, and where to go to discuss a particular topic.
3) Who would moderate the new news.groups? Are you going to be changing
the moderator every month? Not everyone has the time to moderate a group,
but DO want to participate in the health and well-being of the net. Or would
you give moderation powers to someone not involved with the process (thus
allowing for politicing by the moderator).
-or
- 2) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB. Unless they are unanimously
- AGAINST it, it gets created. (If they are unanimously against,
- a survey might be taken if the applicant appeals.)
-
- The groups is create on a trial basis. A set of randomly selected
- arbitron running sites will send arbitron reports to UNLAB officials.
- If the readership reaches suitable levels (decided by UNLAB, but
- the same for all groups) within 4-6 months, the group stays.
- Otherwise the axe falls.
Here's where complete anarchy (to use the euphamistic term, rather than the
definition) really begins. You'll begin to get people mailing to the
members of UNLAB saying "Please create this group!". The potential for
computerized hell for the members of UNLAB will begin to approach that of
real life politicians. Especially during those 5 months when someone of
the belief "If someone wants a newsgroup, then they should have it."
is a member. There are people out there who believe this, remember.
It will happen.
-Membership:
- UNLAB membership would be open to sysadmins with 3 or more years
- of usenet experience. Each new member would be drawn from a
- pool of volunteers. The drawing would be random, and done by
- a non-member who has signed an oath to execute the choices
- randomly. (Or pseudo randomly, since it would be done by
- software.)
Here's my favorite part. Do you mean "(sysadmin > 3) and (usenet exp > 3)"
or do you mean "(sysadmin > 3) or (usenet exp > 3) if you have some of both".
Are you going to deny membership to those folks who have hacked the news
software to pieces, participated heavily on the net, and keep in touch with
people all over the world simply because they've only been doing that for
a year? And are you going to allow someone with who's been reading the net
for 3 years and just got their own machine to be on the board?
Hell, for that matter, just what *is* usenet experience? Reading? Posting?
Coding? Moderating?
-Now I personally, as a sysadmin, would trust this more than the
-random, self-selected, biased noisy polls we see now. What about you?
-Think of it. No noise, no arguments, no sticky procedure.
I wouldn't. I *like* the noisy polls we see now. I don't see them as
inherently biased. For all the groups that have been created that you
might not like, a number have also NOT been created, and a number have
also never gotten off the ground.
Under your plan, rec.music.rock (which I am almost violently opposed to)
would probably have been created. Because of the voting policy, it did
not get created. While others may not agree, I see this as a good thing.
-I will write up a formal set of rules for the board later if people
-like this idea.
Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) I don't like this idea. It creates
bueracracy, politicizing and chaos. It also does not represent the will
of those who care about the net, and keeps those who can and will do
the best job from doing so. It's just not a good idea.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO. brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/30/89)
I would say that if the 5 board members no "nothing" of amateur radio, that would indicate that a specialized subgroup needs extra evidence to be created. As it is, I can't imagine the members knowing nothing about it, although they could all know very little. The point is, however, that sometimes group proposals come that just don't make sense on the net. If a group can't manage one reader for every long distance link it goes over, then USENET is clearly not an efficient way to run that group. There are very valid discussion topics that simply don't make sense in the context of THIS net. That doesn't mean they don't make sense in the context of other nets and other technologies. For example, one can set up a mailing list even on this net. Or one can set up a BBS. If you can't set up a BBS, there are thousands of BBSs around the world that would be glad to set up a topic area for you, and most of these are free. "But I have pay phone bills to access them?" -- of course. But if you don't have one reader per long distance link, then other people are paying phone bills not just for you to access the data, but for *nobody* to access the data. At any rate, UNLAB might very well decide, at first, that a group just isn't right for usenet. (To use a current example, if I were on UNLAB, I would suggest a group for organizing animal rights activists might not be right for usenet, and more appropriate for a mailing list or BBS.) If UNLAB votes that way, what that means is that you give up or you go out and get evidence that there is a strong demand for the group, that's all. You could even hold (gasp) a survey. But this would be a rare case. Really most of these decisions are pretty easy for any usenet veteran, and the tough cases can be handled in ways similar to what we use now, such as polls. But right now we're being crazy. We're using participatory democracy to make decisions which are really not worthy of such a technique. If usenet were run by some commercial service, I find it hard to believe that they would use participatory democracy to decide how to create newsgroups, even if they believed in letter the users decide what they want on the net. The only reason I could see them pushing for it would be if they got extra money for each message posted to news.groups! Participatory democracy is a fine idea folks--if USENET were any sort of democracy--but even if it were, we would leave participatory democracy for the really important issues. important issues if -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/31/89)
In article <445@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >In article <3010@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Replace it with what? The next posting says. If you have a real >>replacement, let's hear yours, too. > >Not having read the next posting... > >A cabal. Not a backbone cabal, but a siteadmin cabal. A mailing list >limited to "root", "postmaster" and "usenet" at each site on the Usenet. > >Anyone wanting a new newsgroup would have to convince a site's usenet >admin (needn't be their *own* siteadmin, just any site admin) to bring >it up on the mailing list. > >Site admins would "vote" on newgroup creation, with the vote count/names >posted to news.admin (or wherever). Summaries of mailing list traffic >could be regularly posted to news.whatever. I like this idea, as it keeps the administrators from feeling disenfranchised from the process. This is, after all, what we're trying to achieve, yes? A process that the administrators will accept is important above all -- after all, they are the ones who either (1) pay the bills, or (2) have to answer to the people who do pay the bills. It's necessary that the administrators feel that they have a voice, and that their views are important, or we'll have a hard time getting adminsitrators to comply with the decisions that are made. This applies not only to newsgroup creation and deletion (the most frequent requests) but other issues as well. There's no requirement that an admin vote on a particular issue. As with the current system, there will be many administrators who feel that the issue isn't worth replying to or wasting their breath on. It's enough to know that you can speak, and you will be heard. UNLAB lacks that sense of "belonging"; this proposal has it in spades. Automated software could be easily set up to handle the vote-counting and mailing list gatewaying; there's no need to send 5,000 copies of a mailing from one location. Instead, we have regional sites, who agree to host the list for a particular area (states/cities?). These people form a "fanout" structure, such that say, 100 copies of a mailing list entry are sent from the "origination" point, and it's propagated from there. Replies work the same way; they all funnel to one point, and then are repropagated from there. I'd suggest that the "central" site be directly on the Internet to cut both delivery time and local (telephone) load for the site which takes on this thankless task. Limiting participation to those who have been on the net for "x" years (where "x" is any number > 0) ignores the fact that the net has been growing by leaps and bounds the last few years, with no sign of stopping anytime soon -- and thus the restriction, by it's very nature, prevents a vast number of administrators from having a say. I believe that's a grave error to make. I'd bet that a 3-year experience requirement would disenfranchise nearly 70% of the current network. Thumbing your nose at people who haven't been here as long as you have is no way to get those (which are the _majority_) to follow your example -- like it or not, the "new admins" are those who REALLY set the policy, as they can (and might) simply vote with their feet rather than abide by a decision. I like this idea -- enough to volunteer to be the "fanout" site for our area should it be implemented. We have reasonably-good software for the purpose (smail3, locally hacked to do more than even it's normal great job). -- 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.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/31/89)
In article <2147@viscous.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >1) You're giving an advisory board powers over the creation of newsgroups >for the entire net? I don't want to depend on the whim of whichever 5 >people happen to be in charge at the time. No, it is not being granted powers. It is an advisory board. The power over creation/deletion of groups resides, and always will reside with system admins. The power still resides with them now, with the surveys that get taken under the current guidelines. This does not move the power, it moves the process of giving advice on the decision. >2) news.groups should NOT be moderated. >3) Who would moderate the new news.groups? The group would be moderated not like a regular moderated group, but to allow only the posting of surveys, survey results and board advice. No person would be the moderator. Postings would be forwarded to a board alias, and from there to the chair. If most people are really as emotional about newsgroup creation as this posting suggests, then UNLAB won't work. In my mind, to most of the net, it's pretty much a non-issue. A simple matter not worthy of pretend participatory democracy. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (03/31/89)
Brad:
Why don't you shut your mouth, crawl under your rock.humor.funny and play
with your damned Genie.
So Karl backed down, sort of, everything was cool, a few last minute
hecklers striving to get their two cents in.
You have no common sense boy! Shut up for awhile! All I've read for
months is Brad this Brad that... Sheesh!
I am tired of Brad, I don't want to hear about Brad for at least a week,
go away. Give some other poor sole the chance to get his butt flamed
off!
Please!
--
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) (03/31/89)
> If usenet were run by some commercial service, I find it hard to believe > that they would use participatory democracy to decide how to create > newsgroups, even if they believed in letter the users decide what they > want on the net. Usenet is not a commercial service. It's an epiphenomenon produced by a bunch of co-operating commercial services. The users aren't just paying peons, they literally own the net. Machine for machine. And news polls aren't democratic votes. They're more like Neilsen ratings. Not perfect, but the best we got. Tell you what, Brad, why don't you set up an alternative hierarchy, like alt, and use whatever mechanism you want to control it. If it works better than Usenet people will flock to 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.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/01/89)
In article <288@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: >Brad: > >Why don't you shut your mouth, crawl under your rock.humor.funny and play >with your damned Genie. >You have no common sense boy! Shut up for awhile! > >I am tired of Brad, I don't want to hear about Brad for at least a week, >go away. Give some other poor sole the chance to get his butt flamed >off! Thank you for your kind note. As I have seen this sentiment expressed by one or two others, perhaps more politely, I feel I should explain what is an important issue here. I am tired of a USENET where things are decided by who can shout down the other side the loudest. A USENET where you don't do things for fear that the I-should-run-the-net people will insult and flame you. I DO things on USENET, I don't just talk about them. I believe that the things I do make a better net, and I make efforts to find out whether the things I do are supported by the wider net. I believe they are, and unlike the rest of you, I have evidence for it. I cause controversy for one reason. I do things and I am unwilling to be cowed by flamage. I am not Rushdie, but I am no more responsible for the flamage in this group than Rushdie is responsible for the Ayatollah's death threat. The group creation mess is an important issue to me, and I refuse to not put forward my careful proposal just because some people recently decided to go after me. I am going to do all sorts of other new and even more controversial things in the near future. Is this the USENET you want? One where nobody does anything new that might cause controversy? Some anarchy, that. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (04/01/89)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) said: [in regard to my response to his original posting about UNLAB] - -If most people are really as emotional about newsgroup creation as this -posting suggests, then UNLAB won't work. In my mind, to most of the net, -it's pretty much a non-issue. A simple matter not worthy of pretend -participatory democracy. In the middle of all this mess that's occuring, you aren't sure if there are people as emotional about newsgroup creation as I am? I had thought of myself as being rather mellow about the whole situation, espcecially compared to some of the people out there (I didn't even insult your mother :-) ). This is Usenet. People will get emotional and irrational about even the smallest things. Newsgroups are big things, and will *always* generate sound and fury; most of the time signifying nothing. -- Performance is life. Entertainment is death. - World Entertainment War
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/01/89)
In article <3023@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I would say that if the 5 board members no "nothing" of amateur radio, >that would indicate that a specialized subgroup needs extra evidence to >be created. As it is, I can't imagine the members knowing nothing about >it, although they could all know very little. Oh my God, it's the Usenet Investigative Committee on Amateur Radio. Before this goes any further, there are a few questions that should be considered: 1) Do we need any sort of policy-making body in Usenet, or for that matter, do we need policies? Do we need the guidelines we already have? 2) Should we shift from a cooperative anarchy to some other form of organization, such as a participatory democracy? If so, how should we enforce the dictates of the majority? Should we have the sort of "ruling council" that Brad has suggested? What happens if the majority decide to ignore them? Does anyone remember the Backbone Cabal? Until we decide the answers to these questions, I think the discussion over the newsgroup creation/deletion rules, including Brad's Gang of Five, is premature. We need to decide *if* the net is going to be run before we decide *how* it's going to be run and by whom. Let's remember that the net is an anarchy not because everyone agrees that that's the best way for it to be, but because there is no way to impose any kind of order on it. There are no enforcement mechanisms. The news software source code is provided to every site that runs the news and it doesn't even require superuser privilege to install. Any enforcement mechanism that is built in can be removed by someone who can program in C. Ultimately, the question is "Will we agree to be ruled?" If the answer is "no", the current discussion is a waste of bandwidth. If it's "yes", then the debate on the form of government to adopt, along with the associated questions on how to enforce the decisions of the governing body, can begin. -- Dave Mack
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/01/89)
In article <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <445@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >>In article <3010@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>>Replace it with what? The next posting says. If you have a real >>>replacement, let's hear yours, too. >> >>Not having read the next posting... >> >>A cabal. Not a backbone cabal, but a siteadmin cabal. A mailing list >>limited to "root", "postmaster" and "usenet" at each site on the Usenet. >> >>Anyone wanting a new newsgroup would have to convince a site's usenet >>admin (needn't be their *own* siteadmin, just any site admin) to bring >>it up on the mailing list. >> >>Site admins would "vote" on newgroup creation, with the vote count/names >>posted to news.admin (or wherever). Summaries of mailing list traffic >>could be regularly posted to news.whatever. > >I like this idea, as it keeps the administrators from feeling >disenfranchised from the process. This is, after all, what we're trying to >achieve, yes? A process that the administrators will accept is important >above all -- after all, they are the ones who either (1) pay the bills, or >(2) have to answer to the people who do pay the bills. News administrators make up less than 10% of the membership of the net. (I assume something close to 1 news admin per site. There are around 11,000 - 12,000 sites. There are, according to the last arbitron stats I saw, something like half a million readers.) This scheme may avoid disenfranchising the site admins, but it does so at the cost of disen- franchising the other 90+% of the population. Is this really what we want? -- Dave Mack
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/01/89)
In article <4833@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > In article <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >In article <445@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: > >>Anyone wanting a new newsgroup would have to convince a site's usenet > >>admin (needn't be their *own* siteadmin, just any site admin) to bring > >>it up on the mailing list. > This scheme may avoid > disenfranchising the site admins, but it does so at the cost of disen- > franchising the other 90+% of the population. There is no "Franchise" on the net. All this does is formalise the de-facto situation. -- 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.
csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/02/89)
In article <3649@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <4833@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >> In article <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >> >In article <445@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >> >>Anyone wanting a new newsgroup would have to convince a site's usenet >> >>admin (needn't be their *own* siteadmin, just any site admin) to bring >> >>it up on the mailing list. > >> This scheme may avoid >> disenfranchising the site admins, but it does so at the cost of disen- >> franchising the other 90+% of the population. > >There is no "Franchise" on the net. "disenfranchise[disfranchise], v.t., 1. to deprive of the rights of citizenship, as of the right to vote or hold office. 2. to deprive of a privilege, right, or power." -- Webster's New World Dictionary, Coll. Ed. Now that you know what it means, may we proceed? >All this does is formalise the de-facto situation. Wrong. It deprives the vast majority of the net of their voice in the issue of newsgroup creation. What is being proposed here is an unenforced representative democracy, where the site admins are the representatives of the users at their site. It ignores the fact that many site admins, particularly at large sites with lots of users, administer news in their spare time out of the kindness of their black little hearts, and the last thing in the world they want (or can afford in terms of time) is to become members of the New Improved Distributed Backbone Cabal. Many news administrators are too busy to bother with the issues of whether or not a group is worthy. They let it get hashed out through the voting process and abide by that. I do not particularly want to waste my time arguing with one of the users at my site about whether or not we should create rec.arts.books.ayatollah. If they want it, let them propose it in news.groups and rec.arts.books, and if there is sufficient interest and consensus on the name, fine. True, each site admin has the power to determine which groups are available at hir site, but how many really care whether or not rec.arts.books.ayatollah gets created or not? Let the people who do care about the issue, one way or the other, make the decision. -- Dave Mack
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (04/02/89)
In article <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > > I like this idea, as it keeps the administrators from feeling > disenfranchised from the process. Not that I think the Gang-of-5 idea is any great shakes, but I would like to ask why I, SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR MAN for frog, am supposed to feel disenfranchised? After all, I have an ABSOLUTE veto over newsgroup creation on frog, and ABSOLUTE authority to create new newsgroups at will, on frog. Unlike most net.puritans, however, I feel that what OTHER consenting computers do in the privacy of their own phone connections is their own business. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Remainder Khomeini!
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/02/89)
In article <3031@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >Thank you for your kind note. As I have seen this sentiment expressed by >one or two others, perhaps more politely, I feel I should explain what is >an important issue here. > >I am tired of a USENET where things are decided by who can shout down the >other side the loudest. A USENET where you don't do things for fear that >the I-should-run-the-net people will insult and flame you. I appologize for MY rudeness. But I too am tired! I'm tired of the flames and counter-flames, I'm tired of the controversy which surrounds, seemingly, your every activity. Please understand, first the J**R controversy, then the compilation copyright controversy, then the GEnie controversy.... then no sooner than that final issue began to settle into the dust.... BANG! here comes more flames and counter-flames about your proposed idea for the administration of the news groups. I just feel that with the way the storm clouds seem to follow you around that you could just.... cool it for a couple of days. You know, to give us a rest. To let the dust settle. To let some degree of sanity to return to this group. This was the reason for my rather inappropriate "flame", I have nothing personal against you. No axe to grind. I do not agree with your previous practices... but, I voted... and I will not post to your news group. Thats my revenge, be what it may. I will admit that I do read your group, and insofar as your ability to come up with some pretty good "yuks", you do a good job. >I DO things on USENET, I don't just talk about them. I believe that the >things I do make a better net, and I make efforts to find out whether >the things I do are supported by the wider net. I believe they are, and >unlike the rest of you, I have evidence for it. I DO things on USENET too, like try to communicate rationally with others with similar interests, maybe increase my professional skills, or learn something new, or... Controversy is a double-edged sword Brad, it can create change for the better, or it can destroy. I just hope you have the wisdom/maturity to know what you are promoting. >I cause controversy for one reason. I do things and I am unwilling to >be cowed by flamage. I am not Rushdie, but I am no more responsible for >the flamage in this group than Rushdie is responsible for the Ayatollah's >death threat. I don't know what to make of that last statement, it could be interpreted a number of ways. No you are not responsible for others flames, you ARE responsible for yours and for any petrol you may choose to add to it. Your statement "I cause controvery for one reason", would tend to suggest that you may be a little "bull-headed", as for being "cowed" by the flamage... well, no one should have to abandon their principles because of "flames", but it sure helps if you attempt to understand the other guys position, and if the wind blows hard enough... bend! >The group creation mess is an important issue to me, and I refuse to not >put forward my careful proposal just because some people recently decided >to go after me. I am going to do all sorts of other new and even more >controversial things in the near future. Why is it a mess? Please don't call it a "mess", it may be a "mess" to you, but apparently, for better or worse, it has worked. Your pouring on the petrol here, your last sentence, I want to say nasty things.. I'm resisting.... The insanity has passed... I just deleted it........ >Is this the USENET you want? One where nobody does anything new that might >cause controversy? Some anarchy, that. New things are wonderful, or at least some of them are or could be. The USENET I want, is the one where I can read, enjoy, learn etc. I'm not interested in rectoric, flames and counter-flames. Or to quote my father, who was quoting god only knows.... If it ain't broke.. Well, you know the rest. 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
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (04/03/89)
In article <4832@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
: 1) Do we need any sort of policy-making body in Usenet, or for that
: matter, do we need policies? Do we need the guidelines we already
: have?
Yes. We need the guidelines. Mostly so that responsible net.citizens
have something to judge by. In other words, I, as news admin, *want* a
set of guidelines that I can use to determine when I should pay
attention to a newsgroup/rmgroup. Not because I couldn't use my own
judgement, but, so long as the guidelines are reasonable, I can spend
the time I would have had to in making decisions on better things.
This, of course, applies to more than just newsgroup maintenance.
There are many things on the net which depend on responsible
individuals usually making similar decisions. Guidelines make that
possible, without requiring everyone to become net.gurus or the
existence of net.fascists.
As for policy boards, no, I don't think we need one. I'd much rather
see Usenet compete in its cooperative form against the other, more
controlled, nets. Each has its merits. And besides, it makes a great
experiment.
: 2) Should we shift from a cooperative anarchy to some other form
: of organization, such as a participatory democracy? If so, how
: should we enforce the dictates of the majority? Should we have
: the sort of "ruling council" that Brad has suggested? What happens
: if the majority decide to ignore them? Does anyone remember the
: Backbone Cabal?
This is almost impossible. It would be possible for another net to
eventually supplant Usenet, but Usenet itself can't be changed. Why?
Because it would require the essentially unanimous agreement of the
news administrators. That is so unlikely that I'd expect the sun to go
nova first. I, for one, will refuse to participate in a net which is
an absolute democracy, and you'd have to work very hard to convince
me to participate in a constitutional democracy. And what would
convince me is likely to offend others, etc.
BTW, you have somewhat misrepresented Brad's proposal. Brad's
"ruling council" is nothing of the sort, was presented as nothing of
the sort, and would be laughed at if it were to try. As Brad said,
such a council could only be advisory.
You know, quite a bit of the controversy surrounding Brad's latest
proposals was generated by such, I hope unintentional, misinformation.
: Let's remember that the net is an anarchy not because everyone agrees
: that that's the best way for it to be, but because there is no way to
: impose any kind of order on it. There are no enforcement mechanisms.
I'd like to slightly disagree with this. Usenet is not an anarchy,
not quite; there are net.behaviors that will get you sh*tcanned by
your friendly neighborhood government. This is not quite a minarchy
either; there are no formal government rules, rather a nebulous
out-there which we have to keep looking over shoulders to avoid
offending. The closest I've seen is called "Propertarian", a kind of
libertarian government.
This form of government shares with anarchy a problem: that it seems
unstable with respect to gangs growing in size and dominating the
individuals.
The net seems to be immune from this problem. Why I'm not sure. It
may be that that is a pseudo-problem; it may also be that some factor
peculiar to the net prevents it. Perhaps it is the fact that
collective aggression *has* to be topography based (I can't agress
against you without the cooperation of intervening sites) and the
distribution of *ssholes and responsible individuals prevents that.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill
(BTW, I'm may be looking for a new job sometime in the next few
months. If you know of a good one where I can be based in South
Florida do send me e-mail.)peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/03/89)
In article <3130@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > In article <3649@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >There is no "Franchise" on the net. > "disenfranchise[disfranchise], v.t., 1. to deprive of the rights of > citizenship, as of the right to vote or hold office. 2. to deprive of > a privilege, right, or power." -- Webster's New World Dictionary, Coll. Ed. > Now that you know what it means, may we proceed? 1. The net is not a country, and we are not citizens. 2. Group creation is a privilege already restricted to site admins. The right to create groups is restricted to major site admins. The power to create groups is already restricted to site admins. What universal franchise do the readers and contributors of the net have that would be violated by restricting voting privileges to site admins? The right to flame about it in news.groups? But they'd still have that. The right to vote? But many readers don't have that anyway. Look at all the complaints about votes not getting through. At least site admins would have a better chance of knowing how to get the vote recorded. I'm not in favor of this proposal, at least not as a replacement for voting, but I think the emotional stance that there is some inalienable right to vote for groups is just plain wrong. -- 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.
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (04/04/89)
In article <3130@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >Wrong. It deprives the vast majority of the net of their voice in >the issue of newsgroup creation. What is being proposed here is an What voice? What bills do they pay? How are they responsible when my spool disk goes blotto at 3am? How are they helpful when a site administrator gets flooded with requests to cancel an obnoxious user's account? I feel, actually, that the "vast majority of the net" has voice only if they can talk to their local site admin, or if they are the local site admin. Unfounded guess: A large portion of the regular participants of news.all are site admins, or are in close contact with a site admin. Perhaps a poll is needed? >It ignores the fact >that many site admins, particularly at large sites with lots of >users, administer news in their spare time out of the kindness of >their black little hearts, and the last thing in the world they >want (or can afford in terms of time) is to become members of the >New Improved Distributed Backbone Cabal. If they aren't participating in group formation/regulation now, they probably won't when it goes to a mailing list or moderated newsgroup. If they never participate, what difference does it make whether it's a newsgroup or a mailing list? >They let it get hashed out through the voting process and abide by >that. I do not particularly want to waste my time arguing with one >of the users at my site about whether or not we should create >rec.arts.books.ayatollah. If they want it, let them propose it in >news.groups and rec.arts.books, and if there is sufficient interest >and consensus on the name, fine. You don't have to. Tell them to go bother some other site admin who has the time. If they want to propose comp.sys.cbm.geos, they can go ask one of the comp.sys.cbm heavies to lobby a news admin or site admin. If there's a an actual need for the group (as opposed to a few loudmouths wanting it), it'll probably get created. What needed groups *haven't* been created? We have enough misc groups to handle any of the irregular traffic that oddball subjects generate. >True, each site admin has the power to determine which groups are >available at hir site, but how many really care whether or not >rec.arts.books.ayatollah gets created or not? Let the people who >do care about the issue, one way or the other, make the decision. Here's the problem: A lot of people that "care" about whether or not various newsgroups exist are in no way responsible for the administration of the net. They're just J. Random Users at various sites. All of their "caring" doesn't do one whit of good when a site is down and an admin has to get up at 0dark00 to go fix it. Their "caring" often becomes mindless name calling in news.all. I'm trying to find a way to make things more efficient. My ideas are not perfect, nor are they polished and ready to go. I think they're better than what we're doing now. -- J. Eric Townsend | Skate UNIX or die, segmented memory suckers! uunet!sugar!flatline!erict bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) (04/04/89)
In article <3031@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I cause controversy for one reason. I do things and I am unwilling to >be cowed by flamage. If that is what he believes, then why does he subject us all to the expressions of pain when he gets burnt? >I am going to do all sorts of other new and even more >controversial things in the near future. Brad's common sense is underwhelming! His assumption that to be worthwhile, an action has to be controversial shows an.. umm.. interesting philosophy. My children are often deliberately controversial, at least my younger one is. The elder one learned some years ago that there are more profitable ways of getting attention, and certainly easier ways of getting his own way. Even the younger one has the sense to play with fire only once or twice a year! Perhaps we should ask Brad to fill in the gaps for us and expound his "philosophy of life", so that we can be moderate our toleration of him - one way or another. In the meantime, I certainly hope that the next time he deliberately fans the flames, he licks his wounds in private, but that wouldn't be part of the philosophy I presume. The need to complain about the heat of the kitchen seems part of what makes it worthwhile, I suppose, part of "doing". This latest posting can be directly compared with his "six-million" joke posted during the JEDR affair, i.e. "Hmm. The controversy seems to have died down, what can I do to bring it to life again." It all gets a little tiresome. I wonder what the plan is exactly, this plan of deliberate controversy. Could it be to see how far he can go before alienating even his staunchest supporters? You know, of all the crazy postings over the years that have caused screaming and gnashing of teeth, the MES's, the weemba's, the tcp-ip.eniacs, the cabals, the gangs, the jj's, the portals, the deliberate obnoxiousness, the threats of lawsuits and predictions of doom for USENET, only Templeton it seems to me has actually *caused* newspapers to be involved, the net to be held in public disrepute, newsgroups to be officially dropped by important sites (if even temporarily), and *real* threats, coming from without, to be made. Geesh, and he promises us more! What fun! Perhaps Brad's current statement of policy is the biggest threat we currently face. Or then again, perhaps this is just a vicious personal attack on someone with a great sense of humour whose motives couldn't possible be in question (even now?). -- 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
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (04/04/89)
In article <3031@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <288@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: >>Brad: >> [some unnecessary public flaming deleted] > >Thank you for your kind note. As I have seen this sentiment expressed by >one or two others, perhaps more politely, I feel I should explain what is >an important issue here. > >I am tired of a USENET where things are decided by who can shout down the >other side the loudest. A USENET where you don't do things for fear that >the I-should-run-the-net people will insult and flame you. > >I DO things on USENET, I don't just talk about them. I believe that the >things I do make a better net, and I make efforts to find out whether >the things I do are supported by the wider net. I believe they are, and >unlike the rest of you, I have evidence for it. > You are not the only person who can carry this burden. In fact, several of them were trying to resolve this particular question and probably would have done quite well without your "help". >The group creation mess is an important issue to me, and I refuse to not >put forward my careful proposal just because some people recently decided >to go after me. As a news administrator or don't see the awful mess that some see. Some news groups get created and some don't. The number is not overwhelming. The controversy about some of the groups would occur under any system of group creation. The willingness of folk to go along with what happened might be a lot less under systems different than those currently being used. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 The idea that a small transient group making arbitrary decisions would be preferable to the present rules boggles the mind. Unless the pool from which this select group is drawn are of extremely uniform opinion (on usenet? Surely you jest!) there will be no consistency in the decisions. This will certainly lead to controversy that will make past events look like tranquility itself. The present rules are easy to understand and the way that the result is determined is public and definitive. Those are essentials for any decision process for a blob as amorphous as the net. Endless explainations from 5 people (or 10 or 20) about why they decide to create or not create a group is not simple, public, or definitive. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@ccnysci City College of New York dan@ccnysci.bitnet New York, NY 10031 (212)690-6868
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/05/89)
In article <4833@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >News administrators make up less than 10% of the membership of the net. >(I assume something close to 1 news admin per site. There are around >11,000 - 12,000 sites. There are, according to the last arbitron stats >I saw, something like half a million readers.) This scheme may avoid >disenfranchising the site admins, but it does so at the cost of disen- >franchising the other 90+% of the population. What you say is indeed true, however, it is the administrators that allocate system resources, pay the bills and put up the occassional grief in order to support usenet and its readers. This is fact, regardless of the size of the system involved. Perhaps a two tier approach should be considered, the first tier being composed of the readers, the second being system administrators who would then vote collectively upon the recommendations of the readers. 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
muller@bunter.dg.com (Woody Muller) (04/05/89)
In article <3658@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <3130@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >> "disenfranchise[disfranchise], v.t., 1. to deprive of the rights of >> citizenship, as of the right to vote or hold office. 2. to deprive of >> a privilege, right, or power." -- Webster's New World Dictionary, Coll. Ed. > [...] >What universal franchise do the readers and contributors of the net have >that would be violated by restricting voting privileges to site admins? > How did the word 'universal' creep in here? The privilege we are talking about is a net.citizen's power to cast a meaningful vote. Restricting voting privileges to site admins would seem to take away that privelege from the net.citizen. Hence the word 'disenfranchise,' which is what will happen to lots of net.citizens if this happens. Do not expect us to remain quiet while you attempt to disenfranchise us! -- "Standard disclaimers apply!" Woody Muller 919-248-5919(work) 919-544-6783(home)
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/05/89)
In article <813@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <4832@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >: 2) Should we shift from a cooperative anarchy to some other form >: of organization, such as a participatory democracy? If so, how >: should we enforce the dictates of the majority? Should we have >: the sort of "ruling council" that Brad has suggested? What happens >: if the majority decide to ignore them? Does anyone remember the >: Backbone Cabal? > >BTW, you have somewhat misrepresented Brad's proposal. Brad's >"ruling council" is nothing of the sort, was presented as nothing of >the sort, and would be laughed at if it were to try. As Brad said, >such a council could only be advisory. > >You know, quite a bit of the controversy surrounding Brad's latest >proposals was generated by such, I hope unintentional, misinformation. Sorry about that, the "Advisory" part keeps slipping away from me for some reason. My apologies to Brad, no misrepresentation was intended. It was a pleasant change of pace to read a rational, calm posting in the wake of the latest Templeton war. Thanks, Bill. -- Dave Mack
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/05/89)
In article <3658@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <3130@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >> In article <3649@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >There is no "Franchise" on the net. > >> "disenfranchise[disfranchise], v.t., 1. to deprive of the rights of >> citizenship, as of the right to vote or hold office. 2. to deprive of >> a privilege, right, or power." -- Webster's New World Dictionary, Coll. Ed. > >> Now that you know what it means, may we proceed? > >1. The net is not a country, and we are not citizens. The net is a community of interest and we, both admins and users, are members of that community. >2. Group creation is a privilege already restricted to site admins. > The right to create groups is restricted to major site admins. > The power to create groups is already restricted to site admins. The actual act of sending the control message is restricted. The discussion here revolves around the decision-making process that leads up to it. And as the recent comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac newgroup demonstrated, *anybody* with sufficient knowledge can send out the control message. Allowing only a major site to send out the control message is a convention dating from Backbone Cabal days and it's beginning to break down, in case you hadn't noticed. >What universal franchise do the readers and contributors of the net have >that would be violated by restricting voting privileges to site admins? It forces them to deal with their site admins to get what they want rather than being able to say so directly. Imagine what kind of a burden this would represent for the news admins at a university or a large corporation. Anyone who can post to the net can currently vote for or against any newsgroup. You are trying to remove this "right" - hence the term disenfranchise. >The right to flame about it in news.groups? But they'd still have that. So what? The discussion period preceding a vote is useful (in theory) as a means of clarifying the issues. The vote is the decision-making process. >The right to vote? But many readers don't have that anyway. Look at all the >complaints about votes not getting through. At least site admins would have >a better chance of knowing how to get the vote recorded. Are you serious? We should discontinue the voting procedure because some of the votes don't make it to the vote-taker? Maybe we should discontinue elections in the US because some of the voters can't find the correct polling place. >I'm not in favor of this proposal, at least not as a replacement for voting, >but I think the emotional stance that there is some inalienable right to >vote for groups is just plain wrong. There is no such thing as an "inalienable right" any more than there is such a thing as a "self-evident truth". We are trying to decide whether or not we should change the current procedures on the net. It is my position that users without root privilege are just as much members of the net as the site admins and should have an equal voice in what happens here. What happens at any particular site is the business of the site admin and hir users, but I strongly oppose formalizing a semi-feudal procedure where the site admin is the baron and the users are the serfs. I also think representative government is obsolete and generally sucks, but that's another issue. -- Baron Mack of inco welcome to SCAnet
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/05/89)
In article <462@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >In article <3130@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>Wrong. It deprives the vast majority of the net of their voice in >>the issue of newsgroup creation. What is being proposed here is an > >What voice? What bills do they pay? How are they responsible when >my spool disk goes blotto at 3am? How are they helpful when >a site administrator gets flooded with requests to cancel an >obnoxious user's account? What does this have to do with newsgroup creation? Users shouldn't be allowed to vote because your spool directory fills up? Be serious. A fair fraction of the noise on the net is due to people whining about inappropriate posting/crossposting. Maybe a more lenient newsgroup creation policy would alleviate that. A lot of the argument over newsgroup creation seems to be based on the idea that controlling newsgroup creation reduces the amount of traffic on the net. I don't believe it. I suspect that if someone has something to post, they'll post it regardless of whether there's a group specifically for the topic or not. One way to test this idea would be to declare a moratorium on newsgroup creation for a year and see if the growth in volume during that year fits the curve from previous years. My guess is that it would. >I feel, actually, that the "vast majority of the net" has voice only >if they can talk to their local site admin, or if they are the local >site admin. > >Unfounded guess: A large portion of the regular participants of news.all >are site admins, or are in close contact with a site admin. Perhaps a poll >is needed? Unfounded guess: most of the people who favor this proposal administer tiny sites with very few users. Warning to Karl Kleinpaste and Bob Sutterfield: from now on, you're the point of contact for all the OSU students who want a newsgroup created or deleted. Eric, it's pretty obvious that you've never had to be responsive to the demands of a large group of semi-computer-literate users. Getting away from that aggravation is as easy as 'u' or 'k' on the net. When they start pounding on your office door or dialing your phone number, it's a different story. The cure you're proposing is worse than the disease. -- Dave Mack "Propose it in news.groups. Now leave me the hell alone." -- news admin war cry
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/05/89)
In article <297@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: >In article <4833@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >> >>News administrators make up less than 10% of the membership of the net. >>(I assume something close to 1 news admin per site. There are around >>11,000 - 12,000 sites. There are, according to the last arbitron stats >>I saw, something like half a million readers.) This scheme may avoid >>disenfranchising the site admins, but it does so at the cost of disen- >>franchising the other 90+% of the population. > >What you say is indeed true, however, it is the administrators that >allocate system resources, pay the bills and put up the occassional grief >in order to support usenet and its readers. > >This is fact, regardless of the size of the system involved. True, but changing the voting procedure will not alleviate any of those burdens and will probably make the problems worse, not better. Right now, all a news admin really needs to worry about is who approved the newgroup message. If it was somebody like Gene Spafford or Greg Woods and the path looks reasonable, it's OK. If they really hate the group, or feel that they shouldn't carry it for some reason, fine, no one can force them to, but that's a local decision. The proposed news-admin-only approach means that news admins have to deal with a mailing list, which will, I guarantee, be as flame-filled as news.groups currently is, *and* with the local users who can no longer take it directly to the net. The first problem can be alleviated by simply ignoring the mailing list, but the second won't go away. As far as I can see, this approach will piss off 90+% of the net and create additional burdens for the news admins. Everybody loses. It seems like a bad idea. >Perhaps a two tier approach should be considered, the first tier being >composed of the readers, the second being system administrators who would >then vote collectively upon the recommendations of the readers. The system you're proposing currently exists, except that news admins don't do it collectively, they do it individually. The interested members of the net vote, then each admin decides whether or not to honor the vote. If a sufficient number of news admins decide not to carry the group, the fragmentation is sufficient to kill the group off except in small pockets. -- Dave Mack
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (04/06/89)
In article <4860@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >A lot of the argument over newsgroup creation seems to be based on the >idea that controlling newsgroup creation reduces the amount of traffic >on the net. I don't believe it. I don't either. As a major proponent of the "newsgroup creation should be limited to groups that are really needed" side of the argument, I can say that the only reason for wanting to limit the number of newsgroups is NOT because there is a software limit and NOT to reduce the total traffic on the net, but rather to ensure that what traffic there is is organized in such a way that readers can easily find the groups they do want to read and unsubscribe from topics they don't want to read, and so that posters can easily find the appropriate group to post in. It is my belief that the more newsgroups there are, the harder it will be to accomplish this, and that is my SOLE reason for opposing the creation of groups that have not previously demonstrated a need to exist. I am not opposed to the creation of NEEDED groups; I am just opposed to the creation of groups whose sole justification is that a small loud bunch think it would be a neat topic to discuss on the net. That's what we have *.misc groups for, and voting procedures for, to determine whether this is true or not. --Greg P.S. I will be posting a summary of the comments I have gotten on the proposed newsgroup creation guidelines very shortly, now that the discussion has died down somewhat.
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (04/06/89)
In article <3635@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
)Usenet is not a commercial service. It's an epiphenomenon produced by
)a bunch of co-operating commercial services. The users aren't just paying
)peons, they literally own the net. Machine for machine.
I don't think Princeton considers itself a commercial service...
--
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)
First, I am including this article, although many others say similar things (ie., have a group of people vote for the larger group of people on the net). In article <297@ubbs-nh.MV.COM>, noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: > In article <4833@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > > > >News administrators make up less than 10% of the membership of the net. > >(I assume something close to 1 news admin per site. There are around > >11,000 - 12,000 sites. There are, according to the last arbitron stats > >I saw, something like half a million readers.) This scheme may avoid > >disenfranchising the site admins, but it does so at the cost of disen- > >franchising the other 90+% of the population. > > What you say is indeed true, however, it is the administrators that > allocate system resources, pay the bills and put up the occassional grief > in order to support usenet and its readers. > > This is fact, regardless of the size of the system involved. > > Perhaps a two tier approach should be considered, the first tier being > composed of the readers, the second being system administrators who would > then vote collectively upon the recommendations of the readers. One way to work this approach (or Brad's, or any one else's that I have read so far, other than the original guidelines post) is to do something that public companies do all the time when it is time to vote on board members. Corporations have a small board which is empowered by the stock holders (at elections) to represent their interests in the large number of decisions which affect the share holders. Other major decisions are made by the share holders, usually in proxy elections. Why not do something similar with USENET (no, I am not saying to file papers and make it a corporation)? If we have a "board" elected by the readers (or site admins, or whatever) to manage the day to day administering (seems like there already is this -- moderators and other key netters), and site admins hold the proxies for their sites, seems like everyone is included. I as site admin am notified by the board, and I in turn notify my readers through mail. On votes, I could collect the votes from my readers, and forward them to the board (or some member of the board for counting). On calls for discussions, etc. the same thing would work. Someone mails a board member requesting a discussion period for such-and-such new group. The board member (or a moderator?) could mail the admin's a letter telling them of the discussion period, and which group the discussion will be held in, and the admin will again notify his readers. Why do it this way? Most readers probably aren't interested in day to day net operations, otherwise they would request to be site admins :-). They would probably be willing to trust someone they have a relationship with (like the person who administers their site) to pass all requests which are important to them on to them. I as an administrator also have some idea of who reads news on my site (simple shell script if I cannot already determine it). I, as an administrator am responsible to the people on my machine(s) for the news feed working on the machine I am administering, plus making sure maps, etc are updated. As an admin, I am willing to trust a body of people (10-15 seems about right, herein called the BOARD) to make the majority of the net-wide decisions for me (they do now, anyway). I have a sense that most people wouldn't vote, but this gives them the opportunity and they cannot complain later that they weren't included when the group passes/fails. Again, if someone (any news reader) wants to be in on the discussion, they could (and they would know about it) This method allows the largest number of people to have access to discussion and voting than any of the others seen so far, cause they don't have to regularly subscribe to a particular newsgroup for finding out what discussions are pending or what votes are in progress. Readers only need to include themselves if they are interested. This does not address the other matter being discussed about weighting the vote towards those who pay the bills should have the vote, cause I think that is stupid, for one reason: namely, the admin people aren't necessarily the ones who pay the bills, get the phone lines, etc. The bigger the company, (or organization) the more likely it's going to be someone in middle to upper management, or someone not even in an MIS or engineering type of role (the person here accountable for the funding on our machine, buying our TB+, getting a new disk, etc, has only logged onto the machine once and has never read news, and we are small, think of DEC, IBM, SUN, etc.) Also, if the site is a corporate site and the company is publicly held, the stock holders have some say on how the money is spent (should we mail all stock holders of all public corporations on the net for group creation/removal since they are the ones who pay the bills?). Or what about the people who buy the products that are manufactured by people on the net, should we ask them to vote? Or, if it is a public university, should the tax payers or other students be asked (after all, your new disk or new modem might cause tuition to go up or more tax dollars to be diverted to the university)? In all of these cases, I say no. As you can see, I don't think the people paying the bills should necessarily have any say about the net, since they are (largely) ignorant of it (as people who pay the bills; the same person could also be a reader or an admin). Although I am an American, most other countries on the net are democracies to some extent (Great Britain, Canada, West Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, etc.), I say to be as democratic as possible (and put in some structure to support the democracy) rather than take away the 1 person 1 vote rule. We could keep the current newsgroup creation procedure, of some percentage of yes votes vs. total votes required for creation, if we could guarantee that ALL those interested in the discussion/vote are included. What I suggest does this. Again, removal could require some (large) percentage vs. total votes required for deletion. If we wanted to also base creation out of the total number of votes available, we could do this because the site admins could give the number of readers on their system. I have no idea what the numbers should be for the yes/no, and percentages. Finally, if a site does not want a group that others want, they can request the admin to not carry it. If they want a group that others outside the site don't want (or if a few sites want it, and no others do), they could create either a local group or set up a feed with the other site and set up a local group between them. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Gotwisner UUCP: ...!unisoft!peritek!dig Peritek Corporation ...!vsi1!peritek!dig 5550 Redwood Road Oakland, CA 94619 Phone: 1-415-531-6500
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/06/89)
One of the major good points of the UNLAB proposal that has not gotten much attention was one of the first sentences in the proposal. This was: If UNLAB is unanimous (or say, 80%) in favour of the group at first examination, it gets created. End of story. To my mind, no matter what happens on the groups that don't have an 80% approval, we get a complete elmination of mess and needless debate and voting on a large number of groups. One can't say for sure, but I would venture at least 50% of reasonable group proposals would make it that way. Whether UNLAB is 5 or 11 or 21 (about the maximum workable if you ask me) that's got to be worth something. Remember, since UNLAB would have the ability to suggest rmgroup of a newly created group, mistakes could be easily corrected. If sci.physics.fusion died down in 3 months, it could easily be eliminated. ----------- Note that while a policy for rmgroup is not strictly needed, create/rmgroup is currently the only means available for renaming groups. If you can't rmgroup, then you can't rename or correct naming mistakes. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (04/06/89)
In article <4860@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <462@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >What does this have to do with newsgroup creation? Users shouldn't >be allowed to vote because your spool directory fills up? Be serious. No, that's not exactly it. Stop picking nits. My original asserition was (and is) that the *final* responsiblity for creation/selection of groups/policies/whatever should be left up to the people that actually pay for (or answer to the people that pay for) all this stuff we call Usenet. Many people complained about the S/N ratio of news.groups. I suggested that we just pull the "unwashed masses" :-) out of the loop. I'd be just as happy with both news.groups and a moderated admin only group where the actual details were hammered out. news.groups could be the playground for comp.soft-sys.andrew and all the other goofy ideas that come along every other week. news.groups.d (for example) would be a forum for the final discussion and vote amongst admins that all users would be able to read. (I'm responsible for some alt.havoc myself, so I can't really call anyone else a name. :-) >Unfounded guess: most of the people who favor this proposal administer >tiny sites with very few users. Warning to Karl Kleinpaste and Bob >Sutterfield: from now on, you're the point of contact for all the OSU >students who want a newsgroup created or deleted. How many new newsgroups are suggested in a year, and from how many sites? Not that many, IMHO. >Eric, it's pretty obvious that you've never had to be responsive to the >demands of a large group of semi-computer-literate users. No, I've had to be responsive to large groups of computer literate or computer illiterate, but never semi-literate. :-). Seriously, though, I've only admin'd over seasoned developers and braindead salesmen. I've never had to deal with university vax potatoes. I'm really not out to change the system. Brad T. saw a problem and suggested a solution. I didn't like the solution, so I proposed a different one to solve his problem. I'm not really that bothered by the news.groups hassle, I live in alt.land and unix-pc.all for the most part. -- 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
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/06/89)
In article <4859@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > > There is no such thing as an "inalienable right" any more than there is > such a thing as a "self-evident truth". Remind me never to vote for Dave for public office! Life might get really scary. But I agree with his criticisms of the various proposals for oligarchy. And, while I would like to see group creation be easier, I also believe that it is those who wish to make it harder who carry the burden of proof. What harms are being done by not making it more difficult -- harms, that is, that any given admin cannot rectify for her/his site by declining to carry a given group? Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/06/89)
In article <4909@xyzzy.UUCP>, muller@bunter.dg.com (Woody Muller) writes: > How did the word 'universal' creep in here? It bribed the doorkeeper? > The privilege we are talking > about is a net.citizen's power to cast a meaningful vote. Well, I suppose I could say something sarcastic about how meaningful your vote on the net is today. The vote is just an opinion poll. The only meaningful part is whether that poll convinces the system admins to go ahead and create the group. > Hence the word 'disenfranchise,' which is > what will happen to lots of net.citizens if this happens. Speaking of which, what's a net.citizen? I'm an Australian citizen myself. > Do not expect > us to remain quiet while you attempt to disenfranchise us! I'm not attempting to do any such thing. Personally, I don't see any reason to change the rules. I don't see any reason not to have an 'admin' mailing list, either. -- 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.
tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) (04/07/89)
There seems to be an unquestioned assumption here that sysadmins are
the ones who foot the bill for Usenet. Is this really the case? I can
think of one class of site where this is so - the "basement 386" where
someone posts from home. Almost no one else would seem to qualify. At
a big university site, the alumni, tuition payers and grant sources
(including Uncle Sugar) are footing the bill. At a corporate site, the
revenues of the firm are used. Public access sites use the users'
(i.e., newsreaders') fees. In all these cases, the sysadmin is
effectively the *employee* of those who actually foot the bill, and who
[putatively] derive the ultimate benefit from net participation.
No question, though, that sysadmins at all these kinds of sites are the
ones who do the hard work, even if the money does tend to be someone
else's. I am not convinced this ought to mean they determine what the
net does and does not carry, but I can sympathize with the desire.
--
Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP
or tneff@dasys1.UUCPmack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/07/89)
In article <473@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >Many people complained about the S/N ratio of news.groups. I suggested >that we just pull the "unwashed masses" :-) out of the loop. I'd be >just as happy with both news.groups and a moderated admin only group >where the actual details were hammered out. news.groups could be >the playground for comp.soft-sys.andrew and all the other goofy ideas >that come along every other week. news.groups.d (for example) would >be a forum for the final discussion and vote amongst admins that all >users would be able to read. (I'm responsible for some alt.havoc >myself, so I can't really call anyone else a name. :-) I personally favor a "tmp" hierarchy. If you want a group created, say comp.soft-sys.andrew, get your nearest friendly admin to create a group called "tmp.comp.soft-sys.andrew". If, after a few months, the group has a reasonable amount of traffic, conduct a vote on whether to move it into the comp hierarchy as comp.soft-sys.andrew, rename it, leave it in tmp or trash it entirely. People who don't want to participate in the experiment can ax the entire tmp hierarchy. This approach takes care of the "demonstrated interest" clause, allows things to happen quickly, and doesn't require a select group, whatever the size, to advise or decide. If you want "policy", say that no group can exist as a tmp group for more than six months. After six months, it either becomes part of the standard hierarchy or gets rmgrouped. (Much as I'd like to take credit for this idea, I can't. Someone else, I can't remember who, proposed it in one of the previous newsgroup creation flame wars.) In principle, the alt hierarchy could be used for this, but I think that's a bad idea. The alt hierarchy has established itself as the arena for the more unacceptable forms of insanity, and I doubt that a lot of the more conservative sites would take it. Let's call it tmp. Any takers? -- Dave Mack
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (04/07/89)
In article <4870@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > I personally favor a "tmp" hierarchy. If you want a group created, say > comp.soft-sys.andrew, get your nearest friendly admin to create a > group called "tmp.comp.soft-sys.andrew". If, after a few months, > the group has a reasonable amount of traffic, conduct a vote on whether to > move it into the comp hierarchy as comp.soft-sys.andrew, rename it, > leave it in tmp or trash it entirely. People who don't want to participate > in the experiment can ax the entire tmp hierarchy. A very good idea. As it is now votes are silly. People are voting for or against what they *think* the new group will be like. They don't know and probably aren't even close in what they imagine. If a whole tmp.* hierarchy is too much, how about one group: news.tryout?
jdb@dkstar.UUCP (Jon Bennett ) (04/07/89)
In article <429@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) writes: > In article <3031@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >I cause controversy for one reason. I do things and I am unwilling to > >be cowed by flamage. Brad; If I put you in my kill file twice, will you post half as often? > > Perhaps we should ask Brad to fill in the gaps for us and expound his > "philosophy of life", so that we can be moderate our toleration of him - one > way or another. Now there is an idea, but the kill file will get him first. -Oh well. > Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray No, but really. This is a bout the new group problem. If us admins would put Brad in out kill file, a LOT of the problem would go away. I was wondering if a new "control" message should be created to command a net-wide "kill" file command. With this command news-admins could command EVERYONES news reader/poster to eat all of a "certain" persons postings..... hmmmm. As far as the new group problem goes: The people who own the computers that carry the news CONTROL this net. <- note period If a new news group is created on my machine through the use of the control message, and I dont like the group. I will not carry it or forward it. <- note period I believe this is true of all backbones. As far as stepping on the "users" of the net. When they donate CPU's to the net and become "backbones" (whatever that means) then they will have control of the net. Reading and having access to net news is a PRIVLAGE (sp?) not a constutional right. The people that provide the bucks and the computers, and the time to manage the net can control it, should control it, and DO control it. The anarchy of the net makes it what it is. When it ceaces to be an anarchy, comp*serv will annex it, and I will start a new "alt" net. It will be an anarchy too. In the true spirit of usenet......... FLAME BY E-MAIL Please!!!!!! -- No disclamer here. Jon "There, that oughta do it" Bennett This is my computer. jdb@dkstar.UUCP {decvax hplabs inhp4 linus rutgers seismo}!gatech!rebel!dkstar!jdb
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/07/89)
In article <1361@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > >In article <4870@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > >> I personally favor a "tmp" hierarchy. If you want a group created, say >> comp.soft-sys.andrew, get your nearest friendly admin to create a >> group called "tmp.comp.soft-sys.andrew". If, after a few months, >> the group has a reasonable amount of traffic, conduct a vote on whether to >> move it into the comp hierarchy as comp.soft-sys.andrew, rename it, >> leave it in tmp or trash it entirely. People who don't want to participate >> in the experiment can ax the entire tmp hierarchy. > >A very good idea. As it is now votes are silly. People are voting for >or against what they *think* the new group will be like. They don't know >and probably aren't even close in what they imagine. > >If a whole tmp.* hierarchy is too much, how about one group: news.tryout? If you're going to do that, you may as well use *.misc. The point of having a separate hierarchy is to allow a group to be created outside the standard hierarchies so its utilization can be monitored. If you used news.tryout, you could only have one experimental group running at a time or all the postings from the experimental groups would be jammed together. Also, people wouldn't have any way of knowing what the group was about without reading the postings. A separate hierarchy with discrete newsgroups in it really is necessary for this to work. -- Dave Mack
noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) (04/07/89)
In article <4862@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <297@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: >> >>What you say is indeed true, however, it is the administrators that >>allocate system resources, pay the bills and put up the occassional grief >>in order to support usenet and its readers. >> >>This is fact, regardless of the size of the system involved. > >True, but changing the voting procedure will not alleviate any of those >burdens and will probably make the problems worse, not better. Right now, >all a news admin really needs to worry about is who approved the newgroup >message. If it was somebody like Gene Spafford or Greg Woods and the path >looks reasonable, it's OK. If they really hate the group, or feel that >they shouldn't carry it for some reason, fine, no one can force them to, >but that's a local decision. The point I am trying to make is... If their is to be a change in the manner in which groups are created/deleted, then I as a site administrator want to be involved. >The proposed news-admin-only approach means that news admins have to >deal with a mailing list, which will, I guarantee, be as flame-filled >as news.groups currently is, *and* with the local users who can no longer >take it directly to the net. The first problem can be alleviated by >simply ignoring the mailing list, but the second won't go away. See my posting in reply to Brad's current article. In summary, their is no need for the site administrators who want to be involved in the process to discuss anything. Let the users vote.. Let the site administrators decide. Yeah/Ney is the only thing required. >As far as I can see, this approach will piss off 90+% of the net and >create additional burdens for the news admins. Everybody loses. It >seems like a bad idea. It may be a bad idea, it may piss off 90+% of the net. But if it is going to be changed.... I damned sure don't want 5 guys deciding the future of usenet. >>Perhaps a two tier approach should be considered, the first tier being >>composed of the readers, the second being system administrators who would >>then vote collectively upon the recommendations of the readers. > >The system you're proposing currently exists, except that news admins >don't do it collectively, they do it individually. The interested members >of the net vote, then each admin decides whether or not to honor the >vote. If a sufficient number of news admins decide not to carry the >group, the fragmentation is sufficient to kill the group off except >in small pockets. Yes, and the site admins can still do that, but a two tier vote does two things. It allows the individual the opportunity to have his/her voice heard. It allows the site administrators who decide to be involved in the process the right to act collectively to validate the decision. I'll say it one more time.. If this proposal were to pass, do you want 5 or 25 people to decide the future of usenet? Would you rather have the ability to vote as a user, and have a larger number of site administrators pass final judgement and give it their "blessing"? If you stop to think about it.. my proposal is very much like most governments. No, if its gotta change let it be two tier, and without restrictions as to the number of site administrators involved. 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
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (04/08/89)
In article <4870@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >I personally favor a "tmp" hierarchy. If you want a group created, say >comp.soft-sys.andrew, get your nearest friendly admin to create a >group called "tmp.comp.soft-sys.andrew". If, after a few months, >the group has a reasonable amount of traffic, conduct a vote on whether to >move it into the comp hierarchy as comp.soft-sys.andrew, rename it, >leave it in tmp or trash it entirely. People who don't want to participate >in the experiment can ax the entire tmp hierarchy. Yeah, I remember this idea being tossed around. I liked it then, and I like it now. I'm simply tired of long-winded creation battles based on quoting guidelines as rules for groups that really have a limited intrest. You want soc.culture.arabic.quoran.athiests.punishment? Fine. Make it work under tmp.whatever. Just don't waste my time having arguments about how/how not to create the group, why it's needed, and how the "other side" keeps breaking the "rules". -- J. Eric Townsend | "Enter, oh seeker of knowledge... That's *YOU*, fathead!" uunet!sugar!flatline!erict bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (04/08/89)
In article <11250@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >There seems to be an unquestioned assumption here that sysadmins are >the ones who foot the bill for Usenet. Is this really the case? I can >think of one class of site where this is so - the "basement 386" where >someone posts from home. Almost no one else would seem to qualify. At >a big university site, the alumni, tuition payers and grant sources >(including Uncle Sugar) are footing the bill. At a corporate site, the >revenues of the firm are used. Public access sites use the users' >(i.e., newsreaders') fees. In all these cases, the sysadmin is >effectively the *employee* of those who actually foot the bill, and who >[putatively] derive the ultimate benefit from net participation. Following your train of thought, the $5.67 in my pocket isn't really my money, but it's money given to me by my employer, and I'm not really responsible for how it's spent -- I have to think about the people that gave it to me and realise that my $5.67 doesn't mean I'm anything special. Once University of Bucketheads gets M. Alumni's money, it's theirs. Unless they made a prior agreement to spend it on a specific item, they can bloody well buy nerf footballs for undergraduate Russian Studies students if they want. I think you're being purposely silly to prove a point. When I worked as a sysadmin at my last job, they didn't really care about usenet. If our phone bills had gone way up, or lots of processor time was tied up by uucp/usenet, they'd have come to me to see what was going on. They wouldn't say "Hey, you're spending a lot of the investor's money on this stuff", they'd say "Hey you moron, stop wasting money on that usenet garbage." Some of the money, once in the hands of a business, university or whatever, will be spent on data communications. If the site/communications admin doesn't toe the [whatever] line, they'll be fired. They are in a position of responsibility in regards to how they spend the [organization]'s money. This is really unrelated to news.admin at this point, I believe. :-) -- J. Eric Townsend | "Enter, oh seeker of knowledge... That's *YOU*, fathead!" uunet!sugar!flatline!erict bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/09/89)
In article <2765@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <4860@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>A lot of the argument over newsgroup creation seems to be based on the >>idea that controlling newsgroup creation reduces the amount of traffic >>on the net. I don't believe it. > > I don't either. As a major proponent of the "newsgroup creation should >be limited to groups that are really needed" side of the argument, Do you feel that this attitude might make you a less-than-ideal candidate as Gene Spafford's replacement as keeper of the List? Are you willing to honor the outcome of the votes (or whatever), even if you personally feel that a group is unnecessary or poorly named? -- Dave Mack
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (04/10/89)
In article <3147@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >Are you willing to honor the outcome of the votes (or whatever), >even if you personally feel that a group is unnecessary or poorly >named? Who is to stop someone else from sending out a newgroup? The only thing I would have the power to do is to refuse to carry a group on my site, and I would have that power whether or not I become the administrator of the group creation guidelines. I do NOT plan to make actual group creation decisions (except for my own site), even if I could. That is for the administrators of individual sites to do. The vote procedure is merely a GUIDELINE (there's that word again) to assist them in making that decision. --Greg
pleasant@porthos.rutgers.edu (Mel Pleasant) (04/10/89)
I would gather that we should look at Greg's record to determine if he is
less-than-[the]-ideal candidate to act as Gene's replacement as keeper of
the List? Unless I'm mistaken, Greg has always gone with the final outcome
even if he disagrees with it. I think that says it all, no?
--
Mel Pleasant
{backbone}!rutgers!pleasant pleasant@rutgers.edu mpleasant@zodiac.bitnetpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/10/89)
In article <Apr.9.18.59.29.1989.3661@porthos.rutgers.edu>, pleasant@porthos.rutgers.edu (Mel Pleasant) writes: > I would gather that we should look at Greg's record to determine if he is > less-than-[the]-ideal candidate to act as Gene's replacement as keeper of > the List? Wait a second. Who said he's replacing Gene? I thought he was just gonna be the keeper of the rules. -- 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.
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/10/89)
In article <2958@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <3147@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>Are you willing to honor the outcome of the votes (or whatever), >>even if you personally feel that a group is unnecessary or poorly >>named? > > Who is to stop someone else from sending out a newgroup? The only >thing I would have the power to do is to refuse to carry a group on >my site, and I would have that power whether or not I become the >administrator of the group creation guidelines. > I do NOT plan to make actual group creation decisions (except for >my own site), even if I could. That is for the administrators of individual >sites to do. The vote procedure is merely a GUIDELINE (there's that word >again) to assist them in making that decision. Perhaps my question wasn't sufficiently clearly stated. You have proposed yourself as the new keeper of the newsgroup list - the list that most admins use (in conjunction with the checkgroups messages, of which, I assume, you will also be the keeper) to determine which newsgroups are legitimate, still alive, moderated, etc. My question is: will you honor legitimately conducted votes (according to whatever set of guidelines exists at the time) by updating the list and the corresponding checkgroups message to reflect the results of the vote, regardless of your personal opinions about the affected newsgroup? -- Dave Mack
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (04/11/89)
In article <4907@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >Perhaps my question wasn't sufficiently clearly stated. You have proposed >yourself as the new keeper of the newsgroup list - the list that most >admins use (in conjunction with the checkgroups messages, of which, I >assume, you will also be the keeper) to determine which newsgroups are >legitimate, still alive, moderated, etc. Perhaps it was my original proposal that was not clearly stated. The ONLY duty which I will take over is maintaining the GUIDELINES. The official list of groups will still be maintained and periodically posted by Gene Spafford. In fact, assuming Gene is willing to live with the guidelines I come up with (I know he's on vacation right now which is why we haven't heard much from him in this discussion) it is probably better for the net that the guidelines and the list would NOT be maintained by the same person. --Greg
csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/12/89)
In article <2967@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <4907@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>Perhaps my question wasn't sufficiently clearly stated. You have proposed >>yourself as the new keeper of the newsgroup list - the list that most >>admins use (in conjunction with the checkgroups messages, of which, I >>assume, you will also be the keeper) to determine which newsgroups are >>legitimate, still alive, moderated, etc. > > Perhaps it was my original proposal that was not clearly stated. The ONLY >duty which I will take over is maintaining the GUIDELINES. The official list >of groups will still be maintained and periodically posted by Gene Spafford. >In fact, assuming Gene is willing to live with the guidelines I come up with >(I know he's on vacation right now which is why we haven't heard much from him >in this discussion) it is probably better for the net that the guidelines and >the list would NOT be maintained by the same person. I misunderstood your proposal. My apologies. -- Dave Mack