karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (11/25/89)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Down this road leads the Backbone Cabal, the purpose of which was to give >the people who were (and still are) paying for this thing we call a network >a say in where their dollars (and francs and pounds and...) were going. >Of course, the thought that "he who pays the bills calls the shot" went over >like a lead baloon with those who like getting USENET services for free... The idea of having my sysadmin call the shots definitely goes over like a lead balloon with *me*, though not for your stated reason. Your statement leads me to the question, "Is Usenet or is it not an anarchy?" In an anarchy, which is what Usenet is supposed to be, decisions are reached by consensus, and everyone has a voice. Do you wish Usenet to remain one? I have complained that some of the suggestions for improving the newgroup creation process seem like government by representation, *not* anarchy--e.g., the notion of a Newsgroup Naming Committee, and the notion that only system administrators get to vote for a proposed newsgroup. But it occurs to me that "government by representation" exits only if I get to *vote* on my representative; so these two processes wouldn't necessarily be government by representation at all. Having system administrators decide for the people who use the systems that they administrate could be called a benevolent dictatorship (or, if he's a total creep, tyranny!). I have great respect for my sysadmin. However, he is not my voice. (Thank goodness, he doesn't want to *be* my voice, either.) For me, Usenet as it exists vs. how it would be with some of the proposed changes is comparable to the difference between voting on a bond issue vs. voting for my Congressional representatives. When I vote on a bond issue, I vote directly. I get to decide. The bond issue is likely to require a 2/3 majority--that's fine with me. If it passes, it suggests to me that it was truly a Good Thing in the eyes of most people. In any event, my actual vote makes an actual difference. I feel that my vote means something significant in the current newsgroup voting system. When I vote for my senator, I don't feel the same connection. I don't get to vote directly on issues any more. I now am represented by someone who will not always vote the way I would, so my vote doesn't count for as much. My power is reduced significantly; I'm more of a spectator and less of a participant in the voting process itself. In a dictatorship, it's a total crapshoot, unless I happen to have a supreme leader who happens to listen to--consensus. (There's that word again....) Here, of course, I don't even get to vote for my representative. To be, or not to be, anarchy? If people using Usenet want to move away from the conceptual model of Usenet as anarchy, they have the right to push for it. But I think that they should realize that that is their agenda, and it should be stated an an explicit purpose. It's necessary, with change, to have a clear picture of where you want to go to, and to communicate that vision. As for government by representation and benevolent dictatorship, I'm against it. I want to vote--directly. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Robert Frost
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/01/89)
Every time Karen Valentino posts I respect her more and more.*
Her latest posting, however, also jogged my mind a little.
We don't *need* to limit voting to sysamins -- they have all the
power they need in their authority to decide which groups their
respective sites will and won't accept.
Indeed, the only "problem" with the current system anyone's
been able to posit has been the occasional misnomer --
sci.aquaria as the latest offense. This doesn't seem to
happen often, but, even if it's a problem grave enough
to warrant change, let it be a change that makes only
misnaming more difficult -- not a change that makes
other group creation harder, and not a change that dilutes
the individual user's input.
Jeff Daiell
*Since her very first posting was strikingly admirable,
increasing my respect is truly an impressive feat!
--
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good ...
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!"
-- The Animalsjeffm@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (12/01/89)
In article <1989Nov24.224754.5657@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: > >>Of course, the thought that "he who pays the bills calls the shot" went over >>like a lead baloon with those who like getting USENET services for free... > >The idea of having my sysadmin call the shots definitely goes over like >a lead balloon with *me*, though not for your stated reason. Hmmm... I think that if I lived in someone else's house, and he decided that there would be no smoking in the house, that I would not smoke in his house. If he decided that I had to walk around the house naked, I would move out. It isn't *your* system. If the sysadmin is not the system's owner, he is the analog of a landlord. He can decide "no smoking" or no sci.aquaria or whatever the hell he pleases subject to the wishes of the owner. If you don't like it, buy your own system, or get someone to hire you as a sysadmin. >Your statement leads me to the question, "Is Usenet or is it not an >anarchy?" In an anarchy, which is what Usenet is supposed to be, >decisions are reached by consensus, and everyone has a voice. Do you >wish Usenet to remain one? Usenet is an anarchy in that anyone can create a newsgroup. Anyone can remove a newsgroup. War, pestilence, and famine. Sure everyone has a voice. Sure everyone has a right to ignore anyone else's voice. In an anarchy, decisions are made by the individual or group who acts. The sheep who only follow are not part of the loop. Those who stand on the lines and bitch are not truly part of the loop, unless they influence someone who takes action. An individual site is not an anarchy, however, it is an elitest autocracy. On uokmax, the site at which I work, there are three classes of employee (ok, more, but 3 for the purposes of this article): software consultant, student programmer, and student assistant. Student assistants help the users with problems that they may have, and are a buffer between users and the programmers. Student programmers do whatever is assigned them by the software consultants, and also things which the users need that requires root access (file recovery, account maintenance, etc.). The software consultants can decide whatever they wish, and can carry out such decisions subject only to their own conscience and the will of the Manager, who acts on the University's behalf. If Rob, the consultant responsible for networking and such, decides that sci.aquaria will not exist here, it will not. Fortunately, the people in charge here are benevolent dictators, and do not abuse thier powers. >I have great respect for my sysadmin. However, he is not my voice. >(Thank goodness, he doesn't want to *be* my voice, either.) But he has the power to control how and if your voice leaves his site. >To be, or not to be, anarchy? Not much can be done to change the structure of an individual site, so it does not seem to matter in the end how the newsgroups are voted on. >As for government by representation and benevolent dictatorship, >I'm against it. So buy your own system, and let your users tell you what to do! :-) >I want to vote--directly. Fine, vote. But not everyone is going to listen to you. >Karen -- Jeff Medcalf jeffm@uokmax.{uucp|ecn.uoknor.edu} !chinet!uokmax!jeffm BoB smokes *my* pipe! Completely and totally eliminate repetitive redundancy. In 1869, the waffle iron was invented, thus solving the annoying tendency of waffles to wrinkle in the dryer. THIS IS YOUR LAST DAY TO SEND $1.00!!!!!!
jeffm@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (12/01/89)
In article <1989Dec1.000318.17197@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf) writes: > >>To be, or not to be, anarchy? > >Not much can be done to change the structure of an individual site, so >it does not seem to matter in the end how the newsgroups are voted on. Oops, let me clarify: It does not seem to matter in the end how the newsgroups are voted on, as regards the existance of any set of newsgroups on any individual node. Some sites will take voting procedures into account in the process of deciding whether or not to carry a group (such as the sites who refused sci.aquaria on the grounds of voting irregularities), but the majority do not. For example, uokmax grabs anything it can...including the ba.all groups, though we are not anywhere near the Bay Area. -- Jeff Medcalf jeffm@uokmax.{uucp|ecn.uoknor.edu} !chinet!uokmax!jeffm BoB smokes *my* pipe! Completely and totally eliminate repetitive redundancy. In 1869, the waffle iron was invented, thus solving the annoying tendency of waffles to wrinkle in the dryer. THIS IS YOUR LAST DAY TO SEND $1.00!!!!!!
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/01/89)
Jeff Medcalf's analysis showing that each Usenet *site* is an
autocracy just proves my point that we have nothing to lose by
leaving Usenet itself as an anarchy.
Since site admins already have the power to determine what news
comes into their sites, they don't *need* sole power to determine
what groups get created.
For that matter, we don't need a 2/3 rule, or a 100-NOs-kills-it
rule. We might need a separate vote on a group name (conductable
simultaneously with the yes-no balloting), but if we go that
route, we can make the YES-NO balloting *more* conducive to
group creation, since we will have reduced the risk of bad
naming. How about: 100 YES votes means it gets created, period?
Jeff Daiell
--
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good ...
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!"
-- The Animalsgeoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (12/02/89)
jeff daiell ( jeffd@ficc.uu.net ) writes: >Indeed, the only "problem" with the current system anyone's >been able to posit has been the occasional misnomer -- >sci.aquaria as the latest offense. This doesn't seem to >happen often, but, even if it's a problem grave enough >to warrant change, let it be a change that makes only >misnaming more difficult -- not a change that makes >other group creation harder, and not a change that dilutes >the individual user's input. I think that's all anyone's asking of newgroup reform. We want to keep the namespace consistent. I don't think anyone (except maybe Ron Heiby :-) ) wants to make it more difficult to create a new group -- just more difficult to abuse the namespace, whether intentionally or inadvertantly. -- Geoff Allen \ Driggs, Idaho -- cultural hub of the west! {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \ (Tom Harper in rec.skiing)