peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/29/89)
Way to go, Brad. This sure sounds like a great way to reduce the bureaucracy on the net... by creating a commitee. -- 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) (03/29/89)
In article <3588@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Way to go, Brad. This sure sounds like a great way to reduce the bureaucracy >on the net... by creating a commitee. You've described the problem with news.groups very well. Right now when we discuss & create groups, we have a committee of about 5,000, of which about 300 participate in any given issue. So yes, defining a committee of 5 *is* a way to reduce bureaucracy, because it replaces a committee of 300. And it is somewhat elitist, but let's face it: Creating and deleting newsgroups, for all the noise we make about it, is really not that difficult or complex a question. Why do we need a debate among 500 to answer the question? It's not perfectly simple, or I would suggest that one person do it. There is enough controversy on certain issues to merit 5 people. There is not enough to merit 500 under any circumstances. Usenet sometimes acts like the ultimate committee. A committee of the whole community. This is not always a good thing folks. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473