ladkin@kestrel.UUCP (09/20/86)
The administrators of the Usenet are caught in a fundamental policy difficulty. They need to reduce the volume of messages, but want to use a consensus method of deciding which valuable newsgroups should be retained. And, of course, one way of deciding which newsgroups serve a needed function is to look at how many contributions there are. So, volume demonstrates need, and one should retain needed groups, but the intent is to reduce volume. A tricky position to be in. And mistakes are made. That's ok. No-one expects system administrators to be experts at everything under the sun. Not everyone can be aware of the role of what's called `technical philosophy' in modern computer science, for example. So I maintain a mailing list since a mistake was made on the moderated group mod.philosophy.tech. But I have been amazed at some of the reasoning demonstrated recently in discussion of this issue. Greg Woods has been trying to argue that the newsgroup mod.philosophy.tech is not technical. Dave Taylor has been justifying his support of net.singles and his lack of support for mod.philosophy.tech by mentioning the cost of support to hplabs. To address Dave's point: I can't see how discussions of vaginal lubricants are of value to hplabs, but that discussion of constructive set theory, Montague grammar, and semantics for constructive logic are not. I have colleagues at hplabs with whom I discuss the latter quite frequently. I wonder if he's aware what researchers in the natural language and AI groups are doing? To address Greg's point: I can understand that researchers at a high altitude observatory are not primarily interested in what is happening in AI and applied logic. But ignorance and lack of interest are one thing, and no reason to claim that a field is not technical. A course in logic doesn't automatically qualify one to judge a field in which some of us spend our whole careers. Both might be interested to know that what they classify as `talk' is close to what people at ibm san jose are studying in order to design highly reliable distributed systems. One can scan recent conference proceedings from PODC, IJCAI 85, AAAI 86, and the Reasoning About Knowledge conference for many other examples. So much for the content of the discussion. I have a few hints about the style - to whomever it may concern - Putting down the Berkeley math department isn't going to get anyone brownie points for wisdom. Addressing the style of Gene's and Matthew's writings, but not the content, isn't going to win you a prize for rhetoric. Dismissing what we call `technical philosophy' as merely `talk' and `opinion' is a very easy way to look like a fool. Peter Ladkin ladkin@kestrel.arpa
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (09/21/86)
It is indeed possible to move a newsgroup later, so none of this is truly carved in stone. But we do need to keep it moving, and the move is under way. I would like to explain the current situation, since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. net.singles. Many people feel that in a totally fair world, this should be soc.singles. However, if you look at the arbitron stats, you'll see that net.singles is the 7th most popular group on the net. So while the content and volume may seem characteristic of a talk group, it's so popular that it wouldn't be right to put it into talk. net.jokes. The same thing applies as net.singles, although net.jokes is currently listed #2. It's too popular to put into talk. mod.philosophy.tech. This issue is really moot, because there's no traffic in that group. Without traffic, it's impossible to judge what volume, content, and readership would be. Furthermore, the current situation is that mod.* will stay where they are for the time being. Whether mod.* gets moved, and what the new names will be, are still very much undecided. It seems to me that if the eventual traffic proves to be of technical use to some significant part of the net in performing their jobs, it might belong in sci. On the other hand, philosophical discussions, even if technical, may belong in talk if their only purpose is a fun diversion for the participants. net.wobegon. The only issue here is whether the net is better served by a newsgroup (posted everywhere, and consuming a slot in the active file), by a mailing list, or by sharing another newsgroup. net.wobegon is low on the readership list, although certainly not at or even near the bottom. (#158 of 216.) Mark
tonyb@peewee.uss.tek.com (Tony Birnseth) (09/24/86)
In article <2615@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > >net.singles. Many people feel that in a totally fair world, this >should be soc.singles. However, if you look at the arbitron stats, ^^^^ Don't you mean 'talk' here?? >you'll see that net.singles is the 7th most popular group on the net. >So while the content and volume may seem characteristic of a talk >group, it's so popular that it wouldn't be right to put it into talk. > >net.jokes. The same thing applies as net.singles, although net.jokes >is currently listed #2. It's too popular to put into talk. > Just so everyone doesn't think that all backbone sites think alike... I disagree with the above philosophy. Catagorization should be by content, not popularity. One of the principle purposes of the reorganization was to make it easier for a site to sort through major catagories so it could decide what they wanted to carry (pay for) and what not. Just because something is popular doesn't mean the content is what the "site" (could be translated as "management") wants to receive. I feel this way about this issue. But I am willing to wait a while till after the reorganization is complete before recommending to change the agreed upon structure. We desparately need this reorganization and I don't consider the issue to be important enough to hold it up (at this time). It would be nice if the flaming could stop so some serious work could get done. Tony Birnseth News admin at Tektronix
werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (09/28/86)
when Mark posts, I listen .... but some things he just wrote leave me a little uncomfortable ... I don't intend to take any sides here, but just reflect on matters aloud ... In article <2615@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > It is indeed possible to move a newsgroup later, so none of this > is truly carved in stone. However, it is my impression that some people consider the matter "closed" and attack anyone voicing disagreement with the direction things have been moving. On the other hand, I also dislike the tone of quite a few of the complaining postings - might be a (understandable?!) sign of frustration on the part of the posters ... Is there really anything open for discussion by the "general" net-public still? Any guidelines for those that want to take part in such discussions without offending anyone or getting offending replies? (this is meant rethorically, but I hope it causes some soul-searching, but no follow-up arguments) > I would like to explain the current situation, since there seems > to be a lot of misunderstanding. [ the explanations that follow leave me more rather than less confused ...] > net.singles. Many people feel that in a totally fair world, this > should be soc.singles. However, if you look at the arbitron stats, > you'll see that net.singles is the 7th most popular group on the net. > So while the content and volume may seem characteristic of a talk > group, it's so popular that it wouldn't be right to put it into talk. I see this totally different. the high volume proves to me that there is no need for a nationwide distribution and that distribution should be restricted geographically or within "domains", like companies. but the name "talk.singles" seems fine to me. Maybe there should be a mod.soc.singles where the "Best of talk.singles" are published for wider distribution occasionally. Really, a group that becomes too popular so that the volume of postings exceeds a certain (individual) threshhold, loses in value with further increase of postings. Compare it with CB-channels with a longer range and too many people trying to talk at the same time .... > net.jokes. The same thing applies as net.singles, although net.jokes > is currently listed #2. It's too popular to put into talk. It's too popular to even read. I'd, probably, resubscribe to mod.jokes.computers though ..... > mod.philosophy.tech. This issue is really moot, because there's no > traffic in that group. Without traffic, it's impossible to judge > what volume, content, and readership would be. Furthermore, the > current situation is that mod.* will stay where they are for the > time being. Whether mod.* gets moved, and what the new names will > be, are still very much undecided. It seems to me that if the > eventual traffic proves to be of technical use to some significant > part of the net in performing their jobs, it might belong in sci. wait a second, are you saying that the tech.* groups are exclusively for job-related articles? What to one is of interest as a hobby is next man's job. I can't think of any topic for which this is more valid than for computer-related topics. With Unix, a line was drawn by using "wizard" as a distinguishing naming part and to indicate that "serious postings based on some depth in knowledge *ONLY* .." were invited, maybe it is possible to find a way to make such distinction in a more standard fashion .. > On the other hand, philosophical discussions, even if technical, > may belong in talk if their only purpose is a fun diversion ... if the reason for supporting net-wide distribution is opposed to fun diversions, by definition, I guess, one cannot disagree; but ... > net.wobegon. The only issue here is whether the net is better served > by a newsgroup (posted everywhere, and consuming a slot in the active > file), by a mailing list, or by sharing another newsgroup. net.wobegon > is low on the readership list, although certainly not at or even near > the bottom. (#158 of 216.) I guess, my only problem with "condemming" groups with low readership to a likely sudden death is that I find it so unsatisfactory that there are no decent forums for creation of new mailing-groups. ... --Werner