vixie@palo-alto.DEC.COM (Paul Vixie) (05/28/88)
In <4631@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: # Those who insist it's misnamed (on the grounds that anything having to do # with women and computing is ipso facto a soc.* topic) are ... exercising # a nice attention to fine shades of meaning in group names which I don't # see in evidence at other times. This argument amounts to: if people really cared that much about names, why havn't they yelled when other ambiguously named groups were created? Since they havn't, there must be some hidden reason for the opposition to the comp.women name. Tom, there are in fact several forces which motivate people to complain at the comp.women name which weren't present in discussions of other names. However, as the proponent of comp.unix.sysv.i386, let me assure you that names are *very* important to people, and the behind-the-scenes arguments are (endless, trivial, irritating, eye-opening, etc). A better question to ask about the comp.women argument is: why is the argument happening in public instead of in e-mail. I don't know the answer to that. But there *are* unique motivational factors. For one thing, all newsgroups ever having the word "women" in their names have been endless flame fests, and although this one is _not going to be such_, it still bears extra scrutiny from all the people who want to wall off the "dark side" (i.e., all the soc.* and talk.* flamers) of USENET. This is really just paranoia, and noone whose articles I bother to read has yet to assert that the content of the proposed "comp.women" group would be at all in the tradition of the other "*.women[.only]" groups. For another thing, discrimination is something we'd all rather pretend didn't exist. It's as though by acknowledging the need for this group and the propriety of its proposed "comp.*" name, we would have to acknowledge the real fact of discrimination in our otherwise fairly modern society. However, while this motivates people to scrutinize "comp.women" with extra care, I don't think I can accuse anyone of manufacturing rationalizations against the name just to avoid their own internal discomfiture. In any case, your argument depends on something like two (or more) wrongs making a right. If other groups are poorly named, let's rename them. We should not spiral into chaos on the basis of a few poor choices in the past. ------ In <10347@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: # Actually, you're assuming that there is something "bad" about comp.women. # As many people have argued, comp.women would not do anything "bad" to # usenet. As I have said elsewhere, I am very much in favor of this group. I think it will be a _good_ thing for USENET - its topic is extremely important. When I say it sets a bad precedent, I mean that its name will lead USENET further down the path to chaos -- the bad precedent set by comp.society clearly demonstrates this in my opinion: note the number of people who site the sloppiness in comp.society's name as apparent precedence for sloppiness in comp.women's name. A bad idea doesn't get better through repeated applic- ation. # ... Soc is inappropriate because it would: # invite a destructive set of expectations about the group which # would make my job as moderator much more time consuming and much # less rewarding, As evidenced by the dramatic turn-around in talk.politics.theory and talk.philosophy.misc over the last year or so, I can assure you that the "low-life scum" reputation of a prefix _can_ be combatted effectively. If we as network administrators are going to write off soc.* and talk.*, then why have them at all? Simply axe them all and let alt.* pick them up. I think this would be a very bad plan -- there is some benefit to these groups, and they are worth saving. I understand that you would spend effort combatting the image of soc.* that could be spent instead on the group's content, but I think it's well worth it. I am actually very interested in having your group in the soc.* hierarchy precisely because it will make the other groups look _sick_ in comparison, make moderation of all soc.* groups seem like a good idea, etc. (Note that I am _not_ *pushing* for a soc.* name for this or any other reason, but it the possibility _does_ excite me for this reason. I hope you can grasp the difference -- I like the idea but I wouldn't force others to go along because of that liking.) # duplicate soc.women, I don't see this. Someone said that soc.women's quality has been improving recently; even so, a moderated group with a clear charter is going to have different content than an unmoderated group with practicaly no charter at all. If the question of whether your group will duplicate soc.women depends in any way on its name, then I must have misread your proposed charter. # necessarily not reach some of the people who would most benefit # by it and most benefit others (remember, any SA could cut the # group even if it were named comp, but many cannot get the group # because their company will not get _any_ soc groups,) If a company cannot get soc.* groups, then that is a problem worth solving. soc.* and talk.* are _not_ trash heaps, and should not be treated as such. If a site chooses not to receive them on the basis that the groups are full of flames and worthless drivel, they are _wrong_ and people should argue with their SA's about it. If they choose not to receive them on the basis that they don't want people reading "fun stuff", i.e., non-techie-talk, then they are reprehensible :-) but well within their rights -- perhaps the news readers there can go on strike or whatever. If a site makes this decision for the second reason, it is not for you or me or anyone to try to make an end-run around them. Aside from the moral breach entailed, it will simply make them distrustful of _all_ comp.* groups and perhaps they will have those cut off as well. # and, ironically enough for those obsessed with correct categories # in the news hierarchy, violate the spirit of the soc prefix. # (It will not discuss discrimination as a social issue, # nor will it be a place to socialize.) If your group were going to discuss the effects of women's social problems on the development of specific features of computers, I could agree with this. I believe you want the group to discuss discrimination in social situations which are heavily influenced by computers, which even if rephrased, puts computers as the least significant determinant of the definition. Is there a mailing list? If not, please consider it. I think rick@uunet might be willing to help you set one up and maintain it; a mailing list would have several useful features wrt this discussion: the name would be completely up to _you_. people could get it regardless of what newsgroups they receive. noone would get it that didn't want it. it would give you a chance to probe the depths of the topic, perhaps giving you fuel for your comp.women name arguments. I believe a mailing list is required before the backbone will consider a group in any case. I'm surprised if this hasn't been raised yet. # I am not suggesting that this group have a soc prefix because I would not # moderate any group with that prefix. They say discrimination begins at home. I am sad to hear you say this -- it shows that soc.* is indeed thought of as a trash heap by the very people who could otherwise do something to combat that reputation. Perhaps I'm wrong -- just _why_ would you refuse to moderate any soc.* group? --- Weemba, speaking for the soft underbelly of the net, answered my article from yesterday, but really raised no objection I havn't answered above. I don't see any merit in comp.society.*, since this would just engrave several misnamed groups in stone where what's really needed is to move them all into soc.*. -- Paul Vixie Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/31/88)
[ followups redirected to news.groups] In article <2876@palo-alto.DEC.COM> vixie@volition.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: .In <4631@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: .# Those who insist it's misnamed (on the grounds that anything having to do .# with women and computing is ipso facto a soc.* topic) are ... exercising .# a nice attention to fine shades of meaning in group names which I don't .# see in evidence at other times. . .This argument amounts to: if people really cared that much about names, why .havn't they yelled when other ambiguously named groups were created? Since .they havn't, there must be some hidden reason for the opposition to the .comp.women name. No it doesn't even amount to that. All it says is that no one has demonstrated that the group would have anything to do with women. After all don't the rules so that should be a prior discussion before a group is created. I bet if people saw 2-5 articles that were previously posted having to do with women and computers so that people knew what in the world "the technical core of women and computing" meant most of the disagreement would fade away; and it is part of the guidelines anyways. .all the soc.* and talk.* flamers) of USENET. This is really just paranoia, .and noone whose articles I bother to read has yet to assert that the content .of the proposed "comp.women" group would be at all in the tradition of the .other "*.women[.only]" groups. On the other hand no one has really talked much about what the content would be or shown any prior aritcles discussing this "technical core" the moderator talks about. . It's as though by acknowledging the need for this group and .the propriety of its proposed "comp.*" name, we would have to acknowledge .the real fact of discrimination in our otherwise fairly modern society. I just don't understand the above statement. Try replacing women with something else and see if it follows; and why does computers + women = discrimination -- Dave Caswell Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Case
skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (07/04/88)
In article <2151@pt.cs.cmu.edu> netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu (USENET News Group Software) writes: >Will somebody PLEASE let us know whether or not comp.women is supposed to >exists or not? We've received a few rmgrps messages, but it isn't clear >from discussion on news.groups whether or not these instructions should >be followed. And given the heat of the discussion, I am certainly not >going to remove the group just because we received such messages. Go ahead and remove comp.women. I was the one who proposed it and I am the one who was supposed to moderate it. Instead, comp.society.women is the compromise. That second group does exist (although it has an incredibly low propagation--I'm not sure why) is moderated and has postings. If you are not getting comp.society.women, please let me know and I will mail it to you. Thanks, Trish Roberts (skyler@violet.berkeley.edu)