xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (02/26/90)
In article <38951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: [...] >If you want formal charters, the best thing to do would be to >seriously consider a Great Renaming, where the entire namespace is >rethought and stuff Put In Its Place. That'll be a way to figure out >what domains need to exist, how to define them and what belongs in >them, and would be the only want to get a consensus opinion on >things. Then all we'd need to do is implement it. I'm not at all sure how important this is, but I had noticed a great lack of symmetry in the current newsgroup namespace which might lend a small impetus to another Great Renaming. Once upon a time, there was USENet, standing in splendid isolation, and all was well with the naming heirarchy. Now, however, we have alt, bionet, biz, clari, pubnet, and vmsnet, at least, sharing a namespace with the USENet domains, and accessible at a typical site from the same newsreading software in a single session. Is it perhaps time to exhibit an overdue bit of humility, to recognize the current realities, and to subsume the USENet domains under a single, network identifying toplevel name (maybe "usenet"), just to help folks sort out which newsgroups actually fall under the USENet newsgroup rules, as opposed to the groups falling under rules for other networks? If so, this would provide the chance to sort out the hobby, academic, insult, diatribe, commercial, chat, cultural, interpersonal, humor, and other domains of interest once again. I have to admit, I think the process will be much more difficult without the recognized "backbone cabel" that provided leadership for the last Great Renaming. To replace that lack, I would suggest, if the process begins, that it take place in a moderated newsgroup ruled by an ironhanded despot who only posts digests of ANONYMOUS arguments (to avoid introducing existing net.animosities into the discussion process). That much work probably requires a nearly full time individual, which may require funding by either a government agency or a concerned organization; we should probably also grant that individual before we start final authority to make all group placement/naming decisions. [I doubt the ability to do such a task by consensus, in this or any other group. Design by committee is a known losing mechanism.] I would suggest an academic type with a specialization in library science or some similar practical knowledge organizing discipline, if one is available and willing. Almost any naming done by any single mind would be an improvement over the current hodgepodge, and we should recognize before beginning that the result will have, for each of us, namings and group placements that we would gladly go to the ramparts to defeat, yet must accept to achieve a finished renaming most of which suits us. -- xanthian@ads.com xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan) Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/27/90)
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >In article <38951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >[...] >>If you want formal charters, the best thing to do would be to >>seriously consider a Great Renaming, where the entire namespace is >>rethought and stuff Put In Its Place. That'll be a way to figure out >>what domains need to exist, how to define them and what belongs in >>them, and would be the only want to get a consensus opinion on >>things. Then all we'd need to do is implement it. >I'm not at all sure how important this is, but I had noticed a great >lack of symmetry in the current newsgroup namespace which might lend a >small impetus to another Great Renaming. I'm not sure we're ready for a Great Renaming. I started looking at it late last year and then we definitely weren't ready. But I think we probably ought to think about it because by deciding what we want out of a Great Renaming we can decide what's right and wrong with USENET today -- and perhaps be able to make the important changes without ripping it all apart and putting it back together again. At least, we'll understand where we are adn where we want to be, which is a step on the path towards getting there. >Is it perhaps time to exhibit an overdue bit of humility, to recognize >the current realities, and to subsume the USENet domains under a >single, network identifying toplevel name (maybe "usenet"), just to >help folks sort out which newsgroups actually fall under the USENet >newsgroup rules, as opposed to the groups falling under rules for >other networks? Actually, I'd go the other direction and make each top-level domain somewhat autonomous, with (perhaps) its own steering committee or oversee person/group, it's own version of news.announce, its own versioon of news.groups and etc. Arguably, the net is big enough now that the people who are qualified to make decisions about what belongs in comp.* are not the same people who are best qualified to decide about sci.* or rec.*. (and, also obviously, there are a LOT of issues to be resolved in that not-yet-proposal, like how to deal with something that is ambiguous on what group is best for it, or for something that simply doesn't fit well -- there has to be some way of deciding what domain, then a way of deciding a place within that domain.) >That much work probably requires a nearly full time individual, which >may require funding by either a government agency or a concerned >organization; we should probably also grant that individual before we >start final authority to make all group placement/naming decisions. >[I doubt the ability to do such a task by consensus, in this or any >other group. Design by committee is a known losing mechanism.] I dunno. The last renaming went by committee and with lots of feedback. Ultimately someone had to make final decisions, but it was definitely by consensus. The current c.s.m reorganization is strongly consensual and is looking less and less like my original proposal as time goes on (and better and better, I might add). Someone (or group of someones) has to make final decisions, but "design by committee" is not inherently bad; "design by a committed unwilling to make a decision" is bad. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] I don't know what's scarier: President Reagan saying he had no inkling of his aides doing anything illegal, or an ex-president who uses the word inkling.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/27/90)
In article <38983@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >I'm not sure we're ready for a Great Renaming. I started looking at it late >last year and then we definitely weren't ready. But I think we probably >ought to think about it because by deciding what we want out of a Great >Renaming we can decide what's right and wrong with USENET today Perhaps "what's wrong with USENET today" is that some think that names are the biggest issue on the net, and we spend our time discussing names, renaming and renamings. I am sorry folks, deciding what names to give to newsgroups just isn't what USENET's about. Oddly, reading news.* seems to give me the impression that everybody who posts here thinks it is. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (02/27/90)
In article <103276@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I am sorry folks, deciding what names to give to newsgroups just isn't >what USENET's about. Oddly, reading news.* seems to give me the impression >that everybody who posts here thinks it is. Sigh. If you want to read about toy boats, read rec.toy.boats. If you want to read about cooking or VMS or astronomy or APL or tai chi, go read the appropriate group. But if you want to read about news administration issues, read THIS group. And newsgroup naming is an important administration issue. -- "We must never forget that if the war in Vietnam \ $ Tom Neff is lost... the right of free speech will be X tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET extinguished throughout the world." -- RN 10/27/65 $ \ uunet!bfmny0!tneff
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (02/28/90)
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) >In article <103276@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>I am sorry folks, deciding what names to give to newsgroups just isn't >>what USENET's about. Oddly, reading news.* seems to give me the impression >>that everybody who posts here thinks it is. > >Sigh. > >If you want to read about toy boats, read rec.toy.boats. If you want to >read about cooking or VMS or astronomy or APL or tai chi, go read the >appropriate group. But if you want to read about news administration >issues, read THIS group. And newsgroup naming is an important >administration issue. No it's not, newsgroup naming doesn't seem terribly important to anyone I see posting about it. It just seems like an idle game that merits little thought other than doing something simplistic and obvious, mostly resembling the same thought given to choosing variable names in a program or file names. The ideas are very shallow, to be blunt. The library systems of the world have spent several hundred years developing topical naming systems. Even if duplicating that work isn't quite right it might be nice to see if anyone might consider existing efforts like this before making their suggestions. But y'all would have to get up, walk over to a library, maybe ask the librarian about subjects like this (not necessarily limited to library science, but it might be a place to start) and go read about it and develop some understanding of such systems. I know, it's easier to just invent systems on the fly, at a reasonable typing rate. Or, barring that, someone might give it a little deeper thought than "maybe we should create a usenet.* top level!" Anyhow, I'm not convinced in the slightest that it's important to anyone here, except as a little game to play with other people on this group for a few minutes at a time. Oh, they may get emotional about the issue, but that's hardly a substitute for sincere thought. The next proposal taken seriously for a USENET renaming should be of publication quality. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD