dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (04/05/89)
In article <28368@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
#The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say.
That would *really* mean the EOTNAWHKI (End Of The Net ...). The people
with the cheque books are the company/Univ. comptrollers/chief accountants
plus some home PC owners. Most of the former don't even have e-mail (ours
is an exception here), never mind read news (ours is no excepton here).
How could they decide on what news groups are best?
OK, I know Chuq means the site admins, but they don't usually control budgets.
While the admins have final say over the domains they control, as the site
admin here I would not support any scheme that did not take account of the
views of the users. They are who the net is *for*. Any computer system
designer or admin who forgets that is not doing their job properly.
I therefor find Karl's scheme for votes by admins only unacceptable,
and while Brad's idea of a small group which would decide uncontroversial
create/deletes but take an advisory poll first for controversial ones has
some merit, I have been unable to persuade myself that it would really work.
It's just too complicated with all that shuffling people round monthly,
and anyway how does it tell what is controversial? Also I fear that if it was
started, it would soon be decided to simplify it into a permanent new cabal
(I'm not suggesting that is the present intent), which we'd all have to
suffer until eventually it got melted in a great flame war.
Finally, the suggestion (I forget who by) that admins vote, and ordinary
users have their say by posting in news.groups must have come from someone
who was not about when the latter used to happen: that was why we agreed
to introduce voting by mail in the first place!
Conclusion: no suggestion which has appeared so far is an improvement on
our present system. Keep thinking, folks, maybe there is a better way, but
we haven't found it yet.
Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in
the good will of the Government and the generosity of civil servants.rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) (04/06/89)
1) pick some people (at most 5). Any one of them can decide to immediately create a group. They can also immediately decide to reject a group. Any one of them can decide to delete a newsgroup unless overridden by 2). The actual deletion doesn't occur until the time alloted for 2) has passed. 2) anyone not liking the above choice can vote to override their decision. A minimum of 200 votes must be received within 30 days and a 2/3 majority must vote to override. 3) should there be a conflict between any of the people in 1), the decision in 1) is immediately nullified and go to 2) This avoids the long wait for "obvious" groups and lets the masses override the imperialists in 1. Once you start with that, the details (e.g. how long a voting period) are minor and come easily. Simple, to the point and workable. --rick
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (04/06/89)
According to rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams): >1) pick some people (at most 5). Any one of them can decide to immediately > create a group. They can also immediately decide to reject a group. >2) anyone not liking the above choice can vote to override their decision. >3) should there be a conflict [...] immediately nullified and go to 2) Wonderfully simple and workable. I say yea. As to the selection: I suggest that some trustworthy person (Rick? Henry? Eric Raymond?) declare himself ineligible and use a pseudo-random selection of five ("major"?) sites; the five admins of those sites form the Cabal. Replacement to be handled the same way. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/07/89)
>>1) pick some people (at most 5). Any one of them can decide to immediately >> create a group. They can also immediately decide to reject a group. >>2) anyone not liking the above choice can vote to override their decision. >>3) should there be a conflict [...] immediately nullified and go to 2) > >Wonderfully simple and workable. I say yea. It'll never work. It's simple, straight forward and honest. I'm all for it. >As to the selection: I suggest that some trustworthy person (Rick? Henry? >Eric Raymond?) declare himself ineligible and use a pseudo-random selection >of five ("major"?) sites; the five admins of those sites form the Cabal. >Replacement to be handled the same way. I don't think pseudo-random is the appropriate way. I think, instead, that we ought to do the following: o Pick an election control officer. o Any person wants to be part of the group can nominate themselves. They should write up a 'campaign' platform explaining why they feel they should be on the board and what they hope to accomplish. o These are send to the eco, who posts them in a controlled format. o The net votes. The top four vote-getter are elected to the board. The fifth slot is made available to Rick Adams@uunet, or his nominated replacment. Why? Because uunet's one of the critical hubs on the net, and Rick has a history of fair-headedness (most of the time). Since uunet handles much of the net's traffic, especially overseas, it makes sense to give them representation. And if this all comes to pass, I'll oversee any election unless someone out there has a major philosophical problem with it. Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
dglo@clash.ADS.COM (Dave Glowacki) (04/07/89)
In article <1989Apr6.113431.27370@ateng.ateng.com> chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams): >>1) pick some people (at most 5). Any one of them can decide to immediately >> create a group. They can also immediately decide to reject a group. >>2) anyone not liking the above choice can vote to override their decision. >>3) should there be a conflict [...] immediately nullified and go to 2) > >As to the selection: I suggest that some trustworthy person (Rick? Henry? >Eric Raymond?) declare himself ineligible and use a pseudo-random selection >of five ("major"?) sites; the five admins of those sites form the Cabal. >Replacement to be handled the same way. Hmmm...I like the "5 people" idea, but people seem to be pushing for administrators from major sites. This allows for easier selection of responsible people, but it also biases the opinions of the board. It seems like the backbone cabal's objectives were to keep the net traffic down and the number of groups small. A selection like: a big university admin, a big commercial admin, a small site admin, a "reader's ombudsman", and <whatever I'm missing> would provide a wider sample of The Net Opinion. I'll admit that choosing the members of this group would be more difficult and the board would be open to objections of "You don't represent MY opinion", but I think the Net effect might be better. -- Dave Glowacki dglo@ads.com Advanced Decision Systems
brian@apollo.COM (Brian Holt) (04/07/89)
I agree with Rick's idea. It is simple and will work.
=brian
--
Internet: brian@apollo.COM UUCP: {decvax,mit-erl,yale}!apollo!brian
NETel: Apollo: 508-256-6600 x5694 Home: 617-332-3073
USPS: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford MA Home: 29 Trowbridge St. Newton MA
(Copyright 1988 by author. All rights reserved. Free redistribution allowed.)mhyman@hsfmsh.UUCP (Marco S. Hyman) (04/07/89)
In article <28503@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > o Any person wants to be part of the group can nominate themselves. They > should write up a 'campaign' platform explaining why they feel they > should be on the board and what they hope to accomplish. Anybody who wants to be part of the group should immediately be disqualified. Potential group members should be dragged in kicking and screaming all the way. They would do the least which would be best for our particular brand of anarchy. --marc -- //Marco S. Hyman //UUCP: ...!sun!sfsun!hsfmsh!mhyman //Domain: sfsun!hsfmsh!mhyman@sun.com
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (04/10/89)
In article <28503@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>>1) pick some people (at most 5). Any one of them can decide to immediately >>> create a group. They can also immediately decide to reject a group. >>>2) anyone not liking the above choice can vote to override their decision. >>>3) should there be a conflict [...] immediately nullified and go to 2) >> >>Wonderfully simple and workable. I say yea. > >It'll never work. It's simple, straight forward and honest. I'm all for it. > Chuq may be right. But there is something in this discussion that really worrys me. I thought that the net grew out of UNIX, that it was kinda like an ethernet where every thing attached was essentially a peer. It seems like we have been taken over by IBM. The net is being turned into SNA. There must be a MASTER. Someone must be in CONTROL. Else the death of the net is upon us. I fail to be convinced by those who assert that group creation is a mess. Chaotic yes, vitrolic at times, but not really a mess. I create groups on my machine. I remove groups on my machine. I decide when to expire groups. Group removal and creation is not automatic. The request ends up in my mailbox when the control message comes. The present system provides the guidance that I need in makeing these decisions. It tells me if there is sufficient interest to justify the creation of the group. I had absolutely no trouble in deciding what to do with the recent eniac and doctortoyoubuddy creation messages. The proposed centralized processes leave me with much less help given the ease with which control messages and mail can be forged. The current hullaballoo connected with group creation provides lots of redundant information. (Some people would term it noise.) Please leave the rules alone. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@ccnysci City College of New York dan@ccnysci.bitnet New York, NY 10031 (212)690-6868