hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) (02/20/90)
In article <RHQ15BAggpc2@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> >hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >> Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where >> it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, >> and on the turkeys who listened to them. >Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent >vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net >that they refuse to carry it. I think I was a little hasty with my posting. The blame actually is more widespread than either my posting or Peter da Silva's follow-up would suggest. In any case, assessing blame is not terribly constructive. What we need to do is decide, given the current unacceptable situation of numerous cross-posts and spotty distribution, what to do. Its about time the network proved that it can rise above petty squabling and undo its mistakes. If it can't, perhaps it deserves the death I always hear is imminent because no one believes the net to be worthwhile. I suggest the following steps: 1) Work to improve the distribution of rec.aquaria. To the best of my knowledge, no one objects to the idea of a mainstream aquaria group in the rec. hierarchy. Yet, as far as I can tell, this group which should be noncontroversial has a worse distribution than the controversial sci.aquaria. Reissuing the newgroup command for rec.aquaria (something which I do not have the power to do) seems to be the first order of bussiness. And if that doesn't do it, E-mail to reluctant site-admins and postings to the appropriate group(s) in the news. hierarchy should follow. BTW, I am *not* saying that all sites need to carry rec.aquaria. I simply ask that site.admins consider the merits of the group, not any personal feelings they have for some posters to and/or readers of the group. At the least, sites "downstream" should be able to receive it from their normal source for rec. groups. 2) Attempt to reach some sort of net.agreement about the existence of sci.aquaria. This should come after rec.aquaria gets appropriate distribution for a rec.* group so that there will be no question that proponents of sci.aquaria are actually trying to establish a seperate news.group. This phase can hopefully be resolved through discussion, because the guidelines don't really cover voting on an already existing news.group. On the other hand, I would be willing to risk losing the currently poorly distributed sci.aquaria for a chance at a well distributed sci.aquaria. I can only speak for myself, not for the others who participated in the voting. The result of this phase will be the issuing of either a newgroup or rmgroup command for sci.aquaria. Again, it is hoped that site.admins will respect the command, just as they would any other command (that is, regardless of politics or personality conflicts; they need not accept a newgroup command if they feel the subject matter is not something for which the machine owner would be willing to pay). 3) Do ??? in the meantime. Whether or not to crosspost (or to what extent) while the multiple-half-group situation is being resolved is very much an open question. As Richard Link has pointed out, numerous cross-posts are a pain-in-the-ass-and/or-wallet to many users (and I fall into this group as my modem at home is mercilessly slow). And as Fred Rump and others have mentioned, the cross-posting destroys the distinction between the groups. If we really feel that more than one group is appropriate (as I do), then how can we condone the lumping of them together (frightening the new aquarists and boring the more scientific among us)? Even for those people who wish to read both groups it would be helpful to have them sorted by level of scientific content. These are the arguments of people at sites receiving more than one .aquaria newsgroup. On the other hand are the people whose sites only receive one or two of the groups (and yes, I realize that the intersection of these two sets of people is non-empty). They are missing a great deal of what is going on. But, as Ben Chase asks, is cross-posting necessary? In the case of these people, it may not be *necessary* (whatever that word is even supposed to mean outside of a system of formal logic), but it does rather defeat the purpose of the network (viz. communication, IMHO) when the readers do not have access to what is being written. As a bit of an example, take the case where one person writes in and asks a question. No one responds and you don't know the answer either. A month later you come across the answer. What do you do? Post to the most appropriate news.group, hoping the asker is lucky enough to get that group? If the answer is relatively specific to a situation, then you may well have missed a good part of your target audience (and an important part, at that) as the person who originally had enough interest to ask the question may never see your answer. The flip side is an answer of general interest. But now it seems appropriate to post to everyone likely to be interested. Or you could just forget about posting the answer. Then the communication really has been thrown out the window. I'm not even sure that it makes a great deal of difference *what* you decide to do. Not only is the distribution of the three groups spotty, but there is apparently some amount of aliasing going on. Recently one poster stuck an article into sci.aquaria, but by the time it showed up on my machine it was in rec.aquaria, and the only reply to it that I have seen popped up in alt.aquaria. It also has not yet arrived at at least one site which supposedly receives sci.aquaria. Something needs to be done! Not only is it driving the fishheads batty, but it is a real black-eye for the network. Will anyone help me clear this up? Dean Hougen -- " 'You really think that, don't you? You really think about it too?', The old man scoffed as he spoke to me, 'I'll tell you a thing or two.' " - the Clash
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/20/90)
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >Will anyone help me clear this up? Well, if I were going to fix the aquaria problem, here's what I'd do. I'd run one more vote on the net, asking users to choose the best name for the group: (example) Rank your preferences for the name of the group 1, 2, 3. If you do not want a specific group named, leave it blank: _____ alt.aquaria _____ rec.aquaria _____ sci.aquaria Then count every '1' as five points, every '2' as three points, every '3' as 1 point and every blank as zero points. When the vote is over, the group with the highest point total wins and the other two are rmgrouped. If you can show that the voting is valid and doesn't have a lot of highly politicized or questionable votes, the net will probably go along with the results -- and at the very least, there'll be a single group with spotty distribution instead of three groups with various parts amputated. But then, I'm not going to fix the aquaria problem. Maybe someone else will. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/20/90)
Sorry, no. Please do not discuss the fish groups in news.groups. That topic has had its day here. It doesn't get another chance. If you are so upset about the result then you should have worked to convince the people invovled that they were doing harm to their own cause. Discussing the matter here will not do any more good, because I think I speak for all when I say we will not tolerate another fish vote and discussion cycle in this group. The result was not good, but there is no mechanism in existing USENET to fix it. You have to live with it. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) (02/20/90)
In article <38785@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: > >>Will anyone help me clear this up? > >Well, if I were going to fix the aquaria problem, here's what I'd do. I'd >run one more vote on the net, asking users to choose the best name for the >group: [example deleted for brevity] >But then, I'm not going to fix the aquaria problem. Maybe someone else will. The problem I have with this solution is that it *assumes* that what the net wants and/or what is best for the net is a single aquaria group. While I think it is clear that at least one aquaria group is desired (or would at least be tollerated) in the rec. hierarchy, it is still an open question about additional possible groups. I think the net should get a chance to decide this seperate from the existence of rec.aquaria. Alot of the bitch- ing about the sci.aquaria vote was that it was in the way of voting for a group that no one objected to. Still hoping there are netters out there who want to clear this mess up and erase a mark against the net. Dean Hougen -- "I used to think the world was flat, Rarely threw my hat into the crowd, I felt I had used up my quota of yearning." - Roger Waters
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) (02/20/90)
In article <99000@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Sorry, no. Please do not discuss the fish groups in news.groups. That >topic has had its day here. It doesn't get another chance. That is a rather negative attitude you've got there Brad. A great many goals take more than one try to reach. That doesn't mean that they are not worth reaching. > If you are so upset about the result then you should have worked to >convince the people invovled that they were doing harm to their own cause. "The people involved" include everyone who debated the issue, everyone who voted, and everyone who knew of the debate and/or the vote and sat on the sidelines. And yes, they did all wind up hurting themselves. I did try to possitively contribute at the time. We failed to reach an acceptable solution, and I failed along with everyone else. Is it so wrong for me to try again? > Discussing the matter here will not do any more good, because I think I >speak for all when I say we will not tolerate another fish vote and >discussion cycle in this group. I think you speak only for yourself. I know you don't speak for all! >The result was not good, but there is no mechanism in existing USENET >to fix it. You have to live with it. We're people here, not simple machines. We can resolve this problem if we try. BTW, until we do, you have to live with it too. So, anyone out there like the idea of possitive changes? Dean Hougen -- "The news groups are not concerned, With what there is to be learned." - the Clash
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/20/90)
In article <1990Feb20.080137.16494@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, hougen@umn-cs (Dean Hougen) writes: >So, anyone out there like the idea of possitive changes? I love the idea of positive change. If it were only possible, rmgrouping sci.aquaria and alt.aquaria *now* and then shutting up about it would fix the problem. Too bad it isn't possible... -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt
bbc@legia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (02/21/90)
In his first article, creating this thread, Dean Hougen is level-headed, even-handed, and asks for positive input, and help in untangling the *.aquaria mess: >Not only is it driving the fishheads batty, but it is a real >black-eye for the network. Will anyone help me clear this up? Chuck Von Rospach replies with a proposal that assumes that one aquarium group will suffice (at least one prior vote to the contrary notwithstanding), and then admits: "But then, I'm not going to fix the aquaria problem. Maybe someone else will." In his next article, Dean Hougen is still level-headed, and quite gracious, admitting the possibility that the popular desire for multiple aquarium groups is still undecided. > The problem I have with [Chuq's] solution is that it *assumes* that > what the net wants and/or what is best for the net is a single aquaria > group. While I think it is clear that at least one aquaria group is > desired (or would at least be tollerated) in the rec. hierarchy, it is > still an open question about additional possible groups. Brad Templeton, a man with a network of his own to play in, chimes in next, with his wonderfully helpful and friendly response: > Sorry, no. Please do not discuss the fish groups in news.groups. > That topic has had its day here. It doesn't get another chance. And once again, Dean is still _amazingly_ nice, astounding all onlookers. Note in particular his use of the word "rather". Less restrained individuals would have chosen something much stronger. > That is a rather negative attitude you've got there Brad. A great > many goals take more than one try to reach. That doesn't mean that > they are not worth reaching. [..] I think you speak only for yourself. Gene W. Smith, surprising absolutely nobody as he remains completely in character, offers us this wonderful advice: > If it were only possible, rmgrouping sci.aquaria and alt.aquaria *now* > and then shutting up about it would fix the problem. (Thankyou, Gene, for your deep insight. Of course, there is the minor detail that you've left the thousands of fish-o-philes with only rec.aquaria, Most Mangled of the Holy *.aquaria Trinity.) So, what I am waiting for now is to see if Dean can keep it up. Does he have the stamina, patience, fortitude, and cool F key to wow us with a third sensible, well-stated and flame-free post? Go, Dean! (Yes, Dean, I do want to help. Is there anything I can do besides not posting another article like this? :-) ((After my previous annoyed posts regarding the cross-posting between the *.aquaria groups, I hacked Gnus enough so that now I can kill crossposts. Anyone desiring a copy of my changes can have one. In fact, with minor work, you could use it to kill anything cross-posted from *.aquaria to anywhere else. Chuq, Brad, and Gene should consider trying this exciting software, if they use Gnus.)) -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
werner@zephyr.sw.mcc.com (Werner Uhrig) (02/21/90)
In article <99000@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Sorry, no. Please do not discuss the fish groups in news.groups. That >topic has had its day here. It doesn't get another chance. If you are >so upset about the result then you should have worked to convince the >people invovled that they were doing harm to their own cause. Discussing >the matter here will not do any more good, because I think I speak for all >when I say we will not tolerate another fish vote and discussion cycle in >this group. >The result was not good, but there is no mechanism in existing USENET >to fix it. You have to live with it. >Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 a true cleric, if I ever saw one - and of course, famous for being Mr. Funny ... :-) Anyway, he doesn't speak for me and is otherwise wrong in many points. There certainly is every reason for those people that like to discuss fishies to have their forum - and to correct whatever mess some dogmatics have blessed us with when they forced through that sci.aquaria vote. I don't understand why Brad would want to live with that mess and I don't understand why he won't let well-intentioned people fix it. Shooting himself into the other foot over it doesn't make things "even out" ... It seems that Chuq's proposal is a good (and very sly) one ... someone will probably call "foul" and someone else will probably call for a vote to decide if the net is in favor to have a vote on the future of "the fish-story" along the lines that Chuq suggests .... well, so be it. As the matter might go, let's be fair to fish-lovers (and get them the hell out of here the fastest way possible before the matter starts "smelling" again) Cheers, ---Werner -- --------------------------> please send REPLIES to <------------------------ INTERNET: werner@cs.utexas.edu or: werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet # 128.83.144.1) UUCP: ...<well-connected-site>!cs.utexas.edu!werner
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/21/90)
In article <BBC.90Feb20110114@legia.rice.edu>, bbc@legia (Benjamin Chase) writes: >Gene W. Smith, surprising absolutely nobody as he remains completely >in character, offers us this wonderful advice: >> If it were only possible, rmgrouping sci.aquaria and alt.aquaria *now* >> and then shutting up about it would fix the problem. >(Thankyou, Gene, for your deep insight. Of course, there is the minor >detail that you've left the thousands of fish-o-philes with only >rec.aquaria, Most Mangled of the Holy *.aquaria Trinity.) There was a point to my comment, which I guess you didn't get. I'll spell it out--with rec.aquaria the only fish group, it would not remain mangled. The problems which beset the fish groups could then be fixed. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/23/90)
bbc@legia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes a very sensible (and, IMO
accurate) synopsis of Deans Hougen's attempts to get some interest and
support for "untangling the *.aquaria mess."
I'm not a net.sophisticate, and I'm not a net.technicalwhiz, either.
So I can't be of much help in pronouncing whether it's possible. But if
it's possible to do it, sure--let it be done. I'll vote.
Karen
--
Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA
karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen
"Clearly, the idea of human beings as units remains at war with the
notion of the interdependence of all things." -- Salvador Minuchin