allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Phil Smith) (04/30/88)
As quoted from <Apr.20.07.22.34.1988.20000@constance.rutgers.edu> by webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber): +--------------- | In article <3880@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: | > Likewise with nonsense or frivolous groups like the eniac.tcp (or | > whatever) group that Mr. Webber has been making noises about. No doubt > ... | > against. Either way, it is an obvious attempt to create a "bizarre" | > group in the comp distribution -- something that a number of sites have | > already indicated they won't carry. | | enough to have settled the matter had that been their wish. Their inaction | demonstrates quite pointedly that they are not exceptionally worried about | the impact of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac on their 2+ megabyte a day news | flow (assuming that they carry a reasonable portion of the net). +--------------- Ahem. Bob, you seem to be assuming that if it is voted for, we're all forced to carry it. However, I assure you that it won't reach ncoast via any of our newsfeeds or be passed to any of our "dependent" sites. Votes or no, the individual sysadmins decide what will be carried. Spaf's declaration on tcp.eniac is simply that a majority of *backbone* admins have stated that they will not carry it: therefore, even if created it won't go anywhere, so there's no point in creating it. If this upsets you, I advise you to reflect on the fact that NO single person or small group can control the entire Usenet, whether it be Webber or the soi-disant "backbone cabal". Thus, you can't force us to carry tcp.eniac even if it's created... but you can at least avoid the backbone if you choose to, by going "alt". Face the music, Bob: the backbone admins won't carry it, so creating it would be an empty gesture. That's the way the world works; throwing a temper tantrum on the net won't help (in fact, it probably hurts your cause). -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {well!hoptoad,uunet!marque,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY MCI Mail: BALLBERY
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/08/88)
In article <7691@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes:
.Votes or no, the individual sysadmins decide what will be carried. Spaf's
.declaration on tcp.eniac is simply that a majority of *backbone* admins have
.stated that they will not carry it: therefore, even if created it won't go
.anywhere, so there's no point in creating it. If this upsets you, I advise
.you to reflect on the fact that NO single person or small group can control
.the entire Usenet, whether it be Webber or the soi-disant "backbone cabal".
Is their any evidence beside Gene's ravings that most of the backbone would
not carry the group? Maybe the backbone admin's could publicly state
whether they would object to carrying this group but it is by no means obvious
that the group would not achieve wide propogation Gene's statements to the
contrary notwithstanding. I would guess that if interesting discussions
took place there that the group would flourish despite a few (it could turn
out to be most; but I doubt it if something truly interesting was taking
pplace) large sites not carrying it. And if the group turned out to be
nothing but a prank with nothing interesting being discussed, it would
die naturally of its own accord and no one would care it it was removed.
So far the only facts that most people have is that Gene goes not like Bob.
It may be that the group is just a farce and that nothing interesting would
be discussed and that no one would care because it would not reach their site
anyway. But so far all we know for sure is that Bob is in Gene's kill file
and that the group has not been created. The other backbone admins have not
stated any more substantial objections.
I say create the group and see if it just dies a natural death. If the group
was created I do not see that anyone has won a moral victory or that it has
proven the valuelessness (is that a word?) of the voting guidelines.
--
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Casejeff@polyslo.UUCP (Skippy The Wonder Hacker) (05/11/88)
Why doesn't someone just create the darn thing? Then we can all remove it and forget about the whole business. Jeff Weinstein Computer Systems Lab, Cal Poly State Univ jeff@polyslo ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jeff
davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM (David Schmidt) (05/12/88)
If Bob really feals that the creation of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac is worthwhile, and that everyone (except the backbones :-) will want it, here is a solution: Bob, create the group at Rutgers and announce to the world that the group exists. Let all of your news neighbors know about it and have them add it to their systems. Have anyone that wants the group contact you to find out where to get it. If a site doesn't want the group, then it doesn't add it, and at worst gets a few extra articles in junk. If this group is the fantastic, "everyone will want it" group that you claim, then it should get wide propogation. My *PERSONAL* opinion is that "Net Gods" have behaved properly. They are ignoring a group that has not met the guidelines (no current traffic, poor choice of name). I believe that Bob Webber is just throwing sand into a machine he doesn't approve of, just to see if he can get the machine to break down. By the way, you won't see the group created here. -- David Schmidt UUCP: davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM ISC Systems Corporation (uunet!iscuva!davids) East 22425 Appleway Phone: +1 509 927-5479 Liberty Lake, WA 99019
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/13/88)
In article <1505@iscuva.ISCS.COM> davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM (David Schmidt) writes:
.If Bob really feals that the creation of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac
.is worthwhile, and that everyone (except the backbones :-) will want
.it, here is a solution:
The solution would be for you to read articles before you respond to them.
Why don't you quote a few lines from the article you are responding to so that
everyone will know that Bob didn't write it and that it never stated that
"everyone will want it"(cptie).
--
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Casewebber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (05/15/88)
In article <1505@iscuva.ISCS.COM>, davids@iscuva.ISCS.COM (David Schmidt) writes: > If Bob really feals that the creation of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac > is worthwhile, and that everyone (except the backbones :-) will want You are wrong in your presumption that the backbone is 100% opposed to carrying the group. Just that there is a good deal of disinterest and a few noisy ones. >... > them add it to their systems. Have anyone that wants the group contact > you to find out where to get it. alt.* would be alot easier if I wanted to take that approach. However, I don't -- after all, creating a group that way is easier than taking a vote and so if that was an acceptable way to create a group, there would be no reason for anyone to bother with these newsgroup votes. >... > My *PERSONAL* opinion is that "Net Gods" have behaved properly. They > are ignoring a group that has not met the guidelines (no current > traffic, poor choice of name). Current traffic is not part of the guidelines at the time this group was voted on. Indeed, current traffic is only relevant when splitting an existing group on the basis of traffic. As a classic example of the difference between being a news group and being a mailing list, recall that the anime mailing list had died from disinterest at the time that rec.arts.anime was created (resulting in nearly 700 informative japanese animation related messages appearing in under a year). The audience one reaches by being a Usenet newsgroup is completely different from the audience one reaches from being a mailing list. The audience one reaches as an organized news group even differs significantly from the audience reached when discussion is spread over random newsgroups (e.g., see the recent comp.fonts versus earlier font discussions on the net). The name of the group was perfect and has recieved many complements. While comp.lang.cobol had certain historical connections, changing the name to that would have created too much confusion similar to the old net.columbia. But, if you feel strongly that comp.lang.cobol is the way to go, then collect your own 196+ yes votes -- don't try to steal mine. ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)