brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (09/14/90)
Why don't we give comp.unix control to the wizards? Several issues come up: 1. Who we call the ``wizards.'' 2. What ``control'' means. 3. How the wizards come to agreement. 4. How the net gets control back if this experiment fails. Some possible answers: 1. We'll arbitrarily say that anyone who sent a message to unix-wizards before the great USENET renaming counts as a wizard. This isn't perfect, but it should produce a group with a reasonable number of experienced netters who have some interest in the groups. 2. Control pretty much means that they can futz around under comp.unix any way they want. Restrictions: They have to give at least two weeks notice of any coming changes, both in news.announce.newgroups and in any affected comp.unix groups. They have to pay attention to comments sent to whatever appropriate place, say news.groups. And when the time is up, they have to post again to the original groups, listing objections received, why they agree or don't agree, and what's going to happen. Finally, there has to be some appropriate place to send suggestions that they'll read any time. 3. It's pretty much up to the wizards how they'll come to agreement. Initially it should be something like a two-thirds majority vote for any proposed change. I expect they'll set up a mailing list for internal discussions. 4. If people aren't satisfied with how comp.unix is being run, we can have a normal vote here every once in a while. Say each vote starts no earlier than six months past the previous one. This gives the cabal, uh I mean wizards, some leeway but not enough for abuse. If they're voted out, comp.unix reverts to its current anarchy, and we can immediately start a vote for fixing whatever problems they've caused. (Discussion for that vote would go on simultaneously with the recall discussion.) Comments? ---Dan
tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) (09/15/90)
In article <8629:Sep1411:54:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Why don't we give comp.unix control to the wizards? Overkill. Although I'm not a wizard (and I don't play one on TV), I think the only real issue is the renaming of comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. I've followed this thread, and I think that a mistake was made (which I had a small hand in, for I voted for the change). I do think that the fuss about people who are worried that their AT&T license agreements exclude their posting here is incorrect, but there are enough lawyers out there to make them worry. Sigh. Just change it back. And let's create comp.unix.hang-the-lawyers while we're at it. -- Thomas V. Frauenhofer, WA2YYW cci632!ccird2!tvf@uunet.uu.net tvf1477@ma.isc.rit.edu atexnet!kodak!swamps!frau!tvf@uunet.uu.net "Why don't you try acting? It's much easier." - Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman during filming of "Marathon Man"
cew@isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) (09/15/90)
In article <8629:Sep1411:54:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Why don't we give comp.unix control to the wizards? > [...] >Comments? There is no conflict between c.u.internals and c.u.wizards. There is overlap, but that doesn't pass the "So What?" test. Let's keep the wizards group and get on with it. Having insight into the arcania of an operating system does not necessarily mean that one has equal insight into network management. Therefore, a call for giving "control" of a slice of the hierarchy to an elect few is illogical and fundamentally flawed. Of course, giving "wizards" (Under the criteria mentioned, I qualify as a wizard!) control could prove entertaining, if you enjoy flame wars. (When Egos Collide ;-). -- Craig E. Ward <cew@venera.isi.edu> Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" USPS: USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) (09/15/90)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Why don't we give comp.unix control to the wizards? > >Several issues come up: > > 1. Who we call the ``wizards.'' > 2. What ``control'' means. > 3. How the wizards come to agreement. > 4. How the net gets control back if this experiment fails. 5. Whether there are enough wizards who care about comp.unix.*, and are willing to take the time to monitor it to see how it is doing and make appropriate changes. (I am making the assumption that one needs to read newsgroups to decide what is best for them.) If passing control of all comp.unix to wizards does not work out, perhaps we can give veto power to wizards on any changes to comp.unix.wizards? Perhaps even make that retroactive wrt the recent renaming? >1. We'll arbitrarily say that anyone who sent a message to unix-wizards >before the great USENET renaming counts as a wizard. This isn't perfect, >but it should produce a group with a reasonable number of experienced >netters who have some interest in the groups. How do new wizards get added to replace attrition? Or is planning that far ahead not a good idea anyway? -- Norman Yarvin yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu "Praise the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're broadminded!" -- Winston Churchill
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) (09/16/90)
As quoted from <8629:Sep1411:54:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein): +--------------- | 1. We'll arbitrarily say that anyone who sent a message to unix-wizards | before the great USENET renaming counts as a wizard. This isn't perfect, +--------------- EEEEEEK!!! I'm not a unix-wizard; I'm a Sorceror's Apprentice. ;-) ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR/KT on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
news@nixpbe.UUCP (Martin Boening) (09/16/90)
And I say no to that! No group, small or large, should have 'control' over
comp.unix. As has been pointed out many 'novices' have posted to comp.unix.\
wizards. Are they to have control over comp.unix because of that while others,
judiciously keeping out of comp.unix.wizards because they felt
- unqualified to answer the more difficult questions and
- didn't bother with the obvious answers to easy questions
are to take that?
I don't like the idead AT ALL!
The comp.unix reorganization was discussed and voted on and passed. Period.
And that's what I'll honour here. If anybody starts 'mucking around' then
this won't be honoured here. (I have already recompiled news to do newgroup
and rmgroup manually and will install that version if any mucking about starts
to take place.)
If comp.unix.wizards EVER gets re-created by a regular vote, I'll be re-
creating it. Until then, it's comp.unix.internals. Please do the reverse
aliasing in your head.
So long
Martin
I forgot to mention: flames are doused in /dev/null, so don't bother.
PS: Disclaimer - this is my opinion entirely, my employers have nothing to
do with it!
--
Martin Boening, c/o Nixdorf Computer AG, DS-CC2, Paderborn, West-Germany
Email: | Phone: (+49) 5251 146155
USA: uunet!linus!nixbur!mboening.pad | Fax : (+49) 5251 146108
!USA: mcvax!unido!nixpbe!mboening.pad |michaelb@wshb.csms.com ( WSHB Operations Eng) (09/17/90)
> 2. Control pretty much means that they can futz around under comp.unix > any way they want. Restrictions: They have to give at least two weeks > notice of any coming changes, both in news.announce.newgroups and in any > affected comp.unix groups. They have to pay attention to comments sent > to whatever appropriate place, say news.groups. And when the time is up, > they have to post again to the original groups, listing objections > received, why they agree or don't agree, and what's going to happen. > Finally, there has to be some appropriate place to send suggestions that > they'll read any time. Why does this begin to sound like the last days of the Roman Senate. Does this mean usenet is about to fall to the hordes? Inquiring minds want to know. Michael -- Michael Batchelor--Systems/Operations Engineer #compliments and complaints WSHB - An International Broadcast Station of # letterbox@csms.com The Christian Science Monitor Syndicate, Inc. #technical questions and reports michaelb@wshb.csms.com +1 803 625 4880 # letterbox-tech@csms.com
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/17/90)
[ Followups to news.groups. ]
According to brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
>Why don't we give comp.unix control to the wizards?
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Dan thinks that
comp.unix.internals is a botch. Yet even he makes no complaints about
the other comp.unix groups.
Besides, if "the wizards" want a net to control, they can create a new
one. It worked for "vmsnet.*".
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) (09/20/90)
In all of this brouhaha, it seems to boil down to a few points:
1) comp.unix.internals seems to worry those who might end up on the wrong
side of a lawyer because of license agreements
2) how to limit/stop the neophyte questions that are answered by the FAQ
posting
3) all the 'wizards' now have to follow several groups to see the same
discussions, instead of the grab-bag c.u.w used to be.
#1 is not solvable without recourse to legal opinion. If anyone has a
problem with the name, let them ask a qualified lawyer for advice. It
may be that there is a better name for the group, based on its current
charter (someone has suggested c.u.kernel).
#2 will never go away as long as the comp.unix.* groups are not moderated.
We might as well live with it.
#3 seems to be generating the most heat. If the wizards want to keep the
same smallish group for wide-ranging discussion, why not create a mailing
list for that, and keep the newsgroup name? If you really are trying to
follow threads about kernal deatils, porting code to a {large|small} unix
system, the trials of using Unix on a 386 machine, and the joy of SCO Xenix,
I don't see why you should feel put out by having to scan multiple groups.
--
Pete Hardie mail: ...!emory!stiatl!slammer!nyet!pete
"Well, Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable,
And Lightness has a call that's hard to hear" -- Indigo Girlslm@slovax.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) (09/30/90)
In article <414@nyet.UUCP> pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) writes: >#3 seems to be generating the most heat. If the wizards want to keep the >same smallish group for wide-ranging discussion, why not create a mailing >list for that, and keep the newsgroup name? Not to pick on Pete but this has finally reached a point that I can't stand it anymore. Why don't all you bozo's out there stop sticking your nose in things that aren't any of your business? unix-wizards predates your potty training. The people who we want to see posting either voted against or ignored this drivel. The thing that bothers me the most is that the name was changed by someone who *isn't* a wizard; now more wizard-wanna-be types are worriedly discussing what they ought to do. I'll tell them what they ought to do: shut up and butt out. --- Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems (415) 336-7627 ...!sun!lm or lm@sun.com
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/01/90)
lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes: > pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) writes: >>#3 seems to be generating the most heat. If the wizards want to keep the >>same smallish group for wide-ranging discussion, why not create a mailing >>list for that, and keep the newsgroup name? > >Not to pick on Pete but this has finally reached a point that I can't >stand it anymore. > >Why don't all you bozo's out there stop sticking your nose in things >that aren't any of your business? unix-wizards predates your potty >training. The people who we want to see posting either voted against >or ignored this drivel. > >The thing that bothers me the most is that the name was changed by >someone who *isn't* a wizard; now more wizard-wanna-be types are >worriedly discussing what they ought to do. I'll tell them what they >ought to do: shut up and butt out. On the other hand, all the news.* wide bitching and complaining for years about how attractive the group had become to newbies with their time wasting questions _was_ by those self-styled "wizards", which proved them to be pretty damned inefficient at doing anything about a real world problem. Kind of reminds you of the galaxy's best gameplayer in Cosmic Checkmate, who also just happened to be an idiot that needed someone around to wipe the drool off his chin for him. This crowd has been running a "shut up and butt out, we _like_ to bitch and whine" rule of universal discourse for years. Now that Chip took the trouble to clean up one source of whining for them, they promptly constructed another, wholly imaginary bogeyman of being sued for the name of the group where they were expected to play their little litterbox games, and the whole net is in heavy duty kowtow mode toward their every drivelling word again. As another poster so succinctly Summary:ed today, FOAD. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (10/01/90)
According to lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy): >The thing that bothers me the most is that the name was changed by >someone who *isn't* a wizard... This statement is false in two ways. First, I consider myself a wizard. I am a junior wizard, perhaps, when compared with the likes of Spencer and Torek; but I have seldom found a question in c.u.questions that I could not answer from memory. Second, *I* did not rename c.u.wizards; I only proposed the renaming. The net at large voted it in. If this action was a mistake, then it was a mistake of the net at large, not of any one person. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) (10/02/90)
In article <143191@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes: >In article <414@nyet.UUCP> pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) writes: >>#3 seems to be generating the most heat. If the wizards want to keep the >>same smallish group for wide-ranging discussion, why not create a mailing >>list for that, and keep the newsgroup name? > >Not to pick on Pete but this has finally reached a point that I can't >stand it anymore. I appreciate the disclaimer. And I will apply the same to the following. >Why don't all you bozo's out there stop sticking your nose in things >that aren't any of your business? unix-wizards predates your potty >training. The people who we want to see posting either voted against >or ignored this drivel. What does the age of unix-wizards (as a newsgroup) have to do with anything under discussion? The net changes all the time, by vote and by admin fiat. There used to be net.flame, but it's gone by the wayside. The purpose of renaming was to improve the indexing value of the newsgroup name. Before, c.u.w was getting the newbie questions regularly, about every topic. Now, they at least won't try to post to 'internals' when they have a question about rm'ing a file that starts with a '-'. >The thing that bothers me the most is that the name was changed by >someone who *isn't* a wizard; now more wizard-wanna-be types are >worriedly discussing what they ought to do. I'll tell them what they >ought to do: shut up and butt out. Are you saying that the comp.unix.wizards newsgroup should be given special consideration? If so, what are the reasons for this? The name change being done by someone not involved with the group is irrelevant.Most newgroup messages are handled by daemons anyway, and the net.gods who everyone trusts send newgroups out on groups that they might never read. -- Pete Hardie mail: ...!emory!stiatl!slammer!nyet!pete "Well, Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, And Lightness has a call that's hard to hear" -- Indigo Girls
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/02/90)
In article <143191@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes: > >Why don't all you bozo's out there stop sticking your nose in things >that aren't any of your business? unix-wizards predates your potty >training. The people who we want to see posting either voted against >or ignored this drivel. > >The thing that bothers me the most is that the name was changed by >someone who *isn't* a wizard; now more wizard-wanna-be types are >worriedly discussing what they ought to do. I'll tell them what they >ought to do: shut up and butt out. If this is a typical wizard posting, forget rmgroup comp.unix.wizards, try rmposter comp.unix.wizards. For the record: I'd like to see re-newgroup of comp.unix.wizards. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
gt0178a@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Burns) (10/02/90)
in article <430@nyet.UUCP>, pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) says: > The purpose of renaming was to improve the indexing value of the newsgroup > name. Before, c.u.w was getting the newbie questions regularly, about > every topic. Now, they at least won't try to post to 'internals' when > they have a question about rm'ing a file that starts with a '-'. I've refrained from joining this thread till now because I prefer to post technical information, and not opinions, but his may be of interest: With the proliferation of newsgroups, I barely know what newsgroup I'm in when I do a followup - If I know the answer, I post. The previous organization was quite different. I knew I was reading/posting in the presence of greatness w/c.u.w., and among the neophytes w/c.u.q., and tailored my decision to post accordingly. Now, it's all one homogenous blend. We're even getting folowup postings in c.u.i. today about where to find header files depending on whether you are using Ansi C or not. This would never have appreared in c.u.w. -- BURNS,JIM Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 30178, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0178a Internet: gt0178a@prism.gatech.edu
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/03/90)
In article <107134@uunet.UU.NET> rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) writes: >Call it whatever you want, but the real wizards no longer care nor notice. Well, I think those "programmers" who still care about writing device drivers for DZ11's might qualify as "wizards". Unix wizardness is not limited to select portions of New Jersey and California. >In general, anyone who calls themselves a wizards, isn't. True. But this still doesn't address the issue, which is, why can't people who care about unibus maps have a place to hide that =they= control, and not someone who thinks a unibus map is the route guide for Trailways in the US. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim Cottrell) (10/04/90)
Wizards? Internals? I suggest a compromise: com.unix.gizzards :-) Root Boy Jim Cottrell <rbj@uunet.uu.net> My computer has more brains than your computer -- Root Boy Jim Cottrell <rbj@uunet.uu.net>
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (10/04/90)
According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >... the issue, which is, why can't people who care about unibus maps >have a place to hide that =they= control, and not someone who thinks >a unibus map is the route guide for Trailways in the US. This "issue" is a red herring. Any group of people who want a hierarchy of their very own can simply create one. This method has already worked for vmsnet, unix-pc, pubnet, gnu and trial. Nothing is stopping you from creating wiznet. Or would you rather complain and post bogus newgroup messages than act constructively? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/04/90)
In article <107258@uunet.UU.NET> rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim Cottrell) writes: >Wizards? Internals? I suggest a compromise: com.unix.gizzards :-) That would be for "geeks" and "internals". The real name should be "comp.unix.wizard-wannabees" or "comp.unix.newbees". You've probably been in my KILL file for all your smart-ass remarks longer than Chip Salzenberg has been posting to USENET. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/06/90)
In article <270B2795.1745@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >>... the issue, which is, why can't people who care about unibus maps >>have a place to hide that =they= control, and not someone who thinks >>a unibus map is the route guide for Trailways in the US. > >This "issue" is a red herring. Any group of people who want a >hierarchy of their very own can simply create one. This method has >already worked for vmsnet, unix-pc, pubnet, gnu and trial. Nothing is >stopping you from creating wiznet. > >Or would you rather complain and post bogus newgroup messages than act >constructively? >-- >Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> John has already confessed, in another posting, that the proper name for the group he's trying to forge back into existance in which his postings should appear is comp.unix.wizard-wannabes. I think that pretty much summarizes the reputation his postings and actions have earned him across the net. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- We won't mention brainless twit.
jeffe@sandino.austin.ibm.com (Peter Jeffe 512.823.4091) (10/14/90)
In article <143191@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> lm@slovax.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) writes: >Why don't all you bozo's out there stop sticking your nose in things >that aren't any of your business? unix-wizards predates your potty >training. The people who we want to see posting either voted against >or ignored this drivel. Oh, great and powerful Gods, forgive us our trespasses and grace us once more with your favor! And while you're at it, please clean the puke off my keyboard! This whole thread sounds more than anything like a bunch of aristocrats complaining about the rabble being given the vote. I find the reference to potty-training particularly revealing, since the tone of the posting is on a par with a three-year-old's. Given the energy required to dispatch these valuable musings around the globe, why not give yourself a decade or two to mature, and save a few precious watts in the process? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Jeffe ...uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!sandino.austin.ibm.com!jeffe first they want a disclaimer, then they make you pee in a jar, then they come for you in the night