webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/02/87)
In article <306@nsta.UUCP>, amos@nsta.UUCP (Amos Shapir) writes: > ... > What I did not understand from Webber's latest article is what he suggests > as a solution to the net traffic problems (he does not seem to be fond > of the 'alternate backbone' idea). Another thing: if he calls for > communication, why didn't he discuss his idea with the moderators and > bb admins first to find out *why* they manage the bb the way they do? A brief history: a few months ago, I saw an announcements of the new news groups names that indicated that both mod.sources and net.sources would be renamed comp.sources which would be moderated. I mentioned this to some of the local admins and they told me I must of have misread it. Turned out I had read it right. About two months ago, I was sitting at my terminal, reading news.stargate where people started talking about how it would only carry moderated stuff and how this was a GOOD THING. I disagreed. In detail. For about a month. After a while, the moderated sources groups fell on hard times. [They are now running reasonably, but I maintain that it is an inevitable part to the design that they will from time to time fall on hard times.] Other people were noticing this and expressed dissatisfaction. I came up with a ``brilliant idea''. Why not do things by the book. Create a mailing list and then when it grows big enough, convert it to a news group. So I posted announcements in the various news groups. Spaf noticed this and sent me a message saying that such mail should not route through his site and cc'd it to the backbone in case others felt similarly. (we are now about three weeks ago) Various messages started flowing, basically I took the opportunity of whenever someone sent me a message telling me not to do something to explain to them why they should let me do it but that since they won't I will be reasonable and not do it in a way that bothers them. This went on for a while, other things happened - like rumors that it was all for naught because the backbone had decided to allow unmoderated sources after all. Finally, I was put in a position where I couldn't move on with the mailing list without outright going against `net policy'. Given that something had to go I analyzed the situation again and came up with ``brilliant idea II'', -- i.e., propose posting to the moderated sources group in a manner that was clearly marked as such. This was then clothed in a parody of the backbone and the way they do things (which has not endeared them to me as you can imagine). More messages have been exchanged. Current status is that I am right now neither a net ombudsman (since weemba@berkeley volunteered to take it over) nor a mailing list coordinator. In the process of all of this, I have posted several messages on various news groups and to the backbone explaining how I think news should be handled so that they don't end up spending all their time having to address questions like ``is it a good thing for the net to have a group devoted to the discussion of blah''. In the process of all of this it has become quite apparent that there really is no underlying structure to how the net operates at all and that it is all very ad hoc. Unfortunately, the net has grown to a size where it needs things like quota systems, distributed archives, etc. I have detailed mechanisms for how quota systems would integrate into the current system both on news.stargate (where I was showing that the net could function well in the absense of stargate) and again to the backbone. The quota stuff is important because I am not a something-for-nothing person. I just think the resources can be better utilized. I kept back copies of all this, so if you are interested and missed it earlier, I can send you a copy directly. ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
mason@tmsoft.UUCP (07/03/87)
In article <274@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >In article <306@nsta.UUCP>, amos@nsta.UUCP (Amos Shapir) writes: >> ... >> What I did not understand from Webber's latest article is what he suggests >> as a solution to the net traffic problems (he does not seem to be fond >> ... > >A brief history: a few months ago, I saw an announcements of the new > ... Your history sounds all very reasonable, and it's fairly easy to see how in the midst of it all sometimes things get interpreted out of context or otherwise get blown out of proportion. A few years ago I, and some others were arguing fairly strenuously that some kind of keyword based news reader was required to cut down on the amount of chaff you have to search through to find the odd kernel of wheat. In the end, the discussion went the way of the Dodo, as have, I'm sure, many others, before and since. I would suggest you explain again your quota idea; then let it lie fallow. Someone may pick up on it & it may save the net (if you want to get credited with saving the net, you should probably re-post every 6 months or so, so everyone knows it's your idea). OR You can program your quota system and get Rutgers to use it, then on the basis of whatever is wonderful about it at Rutgers, convince your net neighbours, then the state, then the east coast, and by then you can probably convince the rest of us. It is my experience that on the net, very few people are willing to program someone else's idea in the hope that it might work. Proofs by existence are the only valid ones. (The keyword idea was partly programmed by someone, (at garfield as I remember) but it was never stable enough to implement everywhere, and the person graduated or something & the idea died, at least for now. I & some others thought about programming it, but didn't have the time (or maybe the conviction)). -- ../Dave Mason, TM Software Associates (Compilers & System Consulting) ..!{utzoo seismo!mnetor utcsri utgpu lsuc}!tmsoft!mason