shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (11/09/89)
In article <3329@watale.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >Richard Sexton <richard@gryphon.COM> writes: >> NO: >> [320 votes, deleted] >> >> YES: >> [466 votes, deleted] >Sigh. There's something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark, or should I say >Usenet. 866 votes certainly got my attention piqued, so I grabbed the list >of voters, and after about an hour of massaging, managed to extract _most_ >voters' uucp hosts and/or Internet domains from the assorted mail paths. >Most interesting! What I then did was to look at all sites/domains with >six or more votes sent in, and see how they voted. Here's a summary of what >I found (note: I do not claim 100% accuracy, but it should be close!): >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...] >Lopsided vote counts >-------------------- [...] >*.nasa.gov YES: 8 NO: 2 From the list of votes: NO: Peter Reiher onyx.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!reiher Thomas E. Dell <amelia.nas.nasa.gov!dell> YES: bertha.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!billw elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!alex elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!lambert James Firby robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!firby Ken Burgess <athena.arc.nasa.gov!kburgess> Phil Stone <ames!eos.arc.nasa.gov!phil> Todd Stock <ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov!todd> William SetzerIDM <nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov!setzer> xxx.jpl.nasa.gov is in Pasadena, CA xxx.dfrf.nasa.gov is at Edwards AFB, CA (about 70 miles north of JPL) xxx.arc.nasa.gov is in Mountain View, CA (about 300 miles north of Edwards) xxx.gsfc.nasa.gov is in Greenbelt, Maryland (a long way east of CA) I don't know where xxx.nas.nasa.gov is, but it's not at Edwards AFB. There's a lot of NASA and it's all xxx.yyy.nasa.gov. There are seven Centers, two Facilities, and Headquarters, plus JPL and several other important pieces. >Am I the only one that's smelling fish in this vote? :) I think you underestimated the robustness of the naming conventions. Also, you missed me--I was listed as drynix!shafer, because that's where I read News. (I voted YES, BTW.) -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/10/89)
In article <10333@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes: > "If you mow down the forest of the law, where will you hide when > the wind shifts?" (Bob quoted it, but I think it was from _A Man > for All Seasons_) "If you start out by breaking the law, why should you expect it to hide you?" Not quoted from anyine. Richard deliberately called for a vote before there was general agreement on the name. That is explicitly prohibited in the guidelines. "Oh, I'm sorry I cheated. But we have to play the hand through anyway". -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (11/11/89)
In article <830@philmtl.philips.ca> I wrote: >Me, thrice, revoting because of flippant "acknowledgements" from Sexton >which could have been construed as rejections. In article <22007@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) replies: >Flippant ? You got the same response all no voters got in the 1 week of >3 that I sent ACK's: a polite note that article id blah de blah in >news.groups was a representative posting of the proposed sci.aquaria >group in case they were mired down in the bullshit. >... > Perhaps you can tell me. Certainly. Let's have an example shall we? I wrote (on a second attempt after a try through cadovax appeared to bounce): >I vote NO to sci.aquaria. >Please confirm receipt. I received the response: >Message-Id: <8910231337.AA02193@gryphon.COM> >Ok., you send me a receipt and I'l confirm it. Flippant? I suppose you have difficulty recognizing it, it's not quite as obvious as derision and disdain. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) (11/11/89)
In article <3759@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >In article <3023@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >> Just goes to show >>the depths that the sci.aquaria.zealots would go to.) >Zealot!? Bah! Just where is my name on the list of voters, Jay? Just because you didn't vote YES doesn't mean you're not a zealot; your postings here give you away. If you don't feel that strongly about the group, why are you so vehement in your support? >>In article <3650@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >>>In article <3012@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>>>Only 59.3% YES is also probably the lowest percentage of any vote ever. >>>>Doesn't that tell you something? >>>That sci.aquaria is more popular than George Bush was? >>Irrelevant. >Equally as relevant as your observation. You show me in the rules where >it says that 59.3% isn't good enough? I hope you took into account the >AUTOMATIC NO vote feature that was incorporated into Banyan's login >program. Only if you'll take into account the various YES-generators. The point of my comment is that sci.aquaria got less proportional support than any other group. The controversy level surrounding this whole affair is the highest ever. Is it any wonder that siteadmins out there who normally support passing along any group that gets voted in are taking a good hard look at this one? The more I look at this, the more I believe that Richard Sexton set out to make a mockery of the process, just as Bob Webber did with comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac. >>I know the rules quite well. One good thing that probably will come out >>of this charade: the rules will probably get improved so that this won;t >>happen again. >Fine. The key word above is "again." Oh, you think that changing the rules to prevent another travesty is "fine"...just don't step on my group? Bah. >>And to me. I suspect, though, that what it says depends on whether or >>not you're a Richard Sexton sycophant. >From a zealot to a sycophant and I didn't even vote YES. Imagine that. Your posts give you away. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? - Brandon Allbery
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (11/11/89)
In article <11461@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > ) Lopsided vote counts > ) ccicpg.uucp YES: 12 NO: 2 > ) decwrl.uucp YES: 30 NO: 0 > > I'd *love* to see the arbitron lines for alt.aquaria and > news.groups for these sites... Of the 14 votes attributed to ccicpg, only 3 came from there. The other votes were from sites downstream; ccicpg was just the jumping point to uunet. It seems that someone didn't do a very good job of vote/site counting. Or did a job, lobbing multiple sites into the last site before uunet. Please try to check your facts before jumping up and down red faced and bug eyed. Dave
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (11/12/89)
In article <3329@watale.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes:
) Lopsided vote counts
) *.gryphon.com YES: 38 NO: 0
) decwrl.uucp YES: 30 NO: 0
) vms.cis.pitt.edu YES: 22 NO: 0
) *.sun.com YES: 19 NO: 1
) *.udel.edu YES: 18 NO: 1
) *.purdue.edu YES: 17 NO: 3
) ccicpg.uucp YES: 12 NO: 2
) *.unisys.com YES: 10 NO: 1
) *.ohio-state.edu YES: 12 NO: 3
I'd *love* to see the arbitron lines for alt.aquaria and
news.groups for these sites...
In case anyone is interested, here is phoenix:
Host phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Users 2283
NetReaders 462
ReportDate Oct1989
SystemType news-arbitron-2.4
1 alt.aquaria
10 news.groups
and phoenix had 4 voters, all of whom are real users. I don't know id
the one reader for alt.aquaria is me or not, I don't read it regularly
enough to be certain of getting counted by arbitron, since phoenix has
a fast expiration time.
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"Nonsense!! They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/12/89)
In article <834@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes: >In article <830@philmtl.philips.ca> I wrote: >>Me, thrice, revoting because of flippant "acknowledgements" from Sexton >>which could have been construed as rejections. > >In article <22007@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) replies: >>Flippant ? >>... >> Perhaps you can tell me. > >Certainly. Let's have an example shall we? > >I wrote (on a second attempt after a try through cadovax appeared to bounce): > >>I vote NO to sci.aquaria. >>Please confirm receipt. > >I received the response: > >>Message-Id: <8910231337.AA02193@gryphon.COM> >>Ok., you send me a receipt and I'l confirm it. > >Flippant? I suppose you have difficulty recognizing it, it's not quite as >obvious as derision and disdain. Here, take two of these and call me in the morning: :-) :-) (I thought it was obvious that any correspondence counted as an acknowledgement.) -- This article was made from the finest quality words and sentances. Minor imperfections in syntax, like the grain in fine leather, serve to enhance it's beauty. richard@gryphon.COM {routing site}!gryphon!richard
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/12/89)
In article <6910@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >"If you start out by breaking the law, why should you expect it to hide >you?" Not quoted from anyine. Richard deliberately called for a vote >before there was general agreement on the name. 1) Define ``General agreement on the name'' 2) Provide an example where (1) cannot be reached. -- This article was made from the finest quality words and sentances. Minor imperfections in syntax, like the grain in fine leather, serve to enhance it's beauty. richard@gryphon.COM {routing site}!gryphon!richard
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (11/13/89)
[peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) recently posted that: | |"If you start out by breaking the law, why should you expect it to hide |you?" Not quoted from anyine. Richard deliberately called for a vote |before there was general agreement on the name. That is explicitly |prohibited in the guidelines. "Oh, I'm sorry I cheated. But we have |to play the hand through anyway". |-- Oh, Horsefeathers! The discussion over foo.aquaria raged long and without any sign of convergence. There were many pleas to hold the stupid vote just to shut up the discussion. He did. The result is in. Let's get on with it! As Barry Shein so well pointed out: WHO CARES ANYWAY??? It's just another directory leaf. - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "A reasonable man adapts himself to the UUCP: buita \ world, an unreasonable one persists in talcott } !encore!cook trying to adapt the world to himself. bellcore / Therefore, all progress is due to the unreasonable man." - G.B. Shaw
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/13/89)
In article <22102@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > In article <6910@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >"If you start out by breaking the law, why should you expect it to hide > >you?" Not quoted from anyine. Richard deliberately called for a vote > >before there was general agreement on the name. > 1) Define ``General agreement on the name'' An absence of flame-wars on it would seem to be a necessary condition. > 2) Provide an example where (1) cannot be reached. You mean like when the group proposer is deliberately attempting fraud? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/13/89)
In article <10347@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes: > [peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) recently posted that: > |"If you start out by breaking the law, why should you expect it to hide > |you?" Not quoted from anyine. Richard deliberately called for a vote > |before there was general agreement on the name. That is explicitly > |prohibited in the guidelines. "Oh, I'm sorry I cheated. But we have > |to play the hand through anyway". > Oh, Horsefeathers! The discussion over foo.aquaria raged long and > without any sign of convergence. Horsefeathers yourself. He should have acceded to the wishes of the obvious majority (and don't give me any bloody grief over that word. It's obvious by now that his vote doesn't represent the wishes of anyone but Richard Sexton) and held the vote for "REC.AQUARIA". He told me in as many words that rec.aquaria was probably a better name. > He did. The result is > in. Let's get on with it! As Barry Shein so well pointed out: WHO > CARES ANYWAY??? It's just another directory leaf. No, it's yet another precedent. Like sci.skeptic. Except this time the guy who got the group created hasn't admitted he made a mistake. I think the next stage would be to campaign in Europe to get the major sites to go along with a boycott. After all, it's they who he really was attacking. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com (Charles A. Anderson) (11/14/89)
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: |In article <2175@garnet.ssd.cdc.com> caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com (Charles A. Anderson) writes: |> |>I voted no and it did not show up, maybe the mail got eaten but I still |>would like to see my vote counted. |Sorry. I didn't receive anything from CDC. Any my mail bounced |to you. Do you suppose that means something ? Yes something between you and me doesn't work. |Interesting to note, the people whose no vote wasn't on the list |POST their complaints, while those whose yes vote didn't appear |MAIL me a ``I didn't see my yes vote, but it passed so it doesn't |matter''. Interesting to note, I mailed something to you and you didn't receive it, the second means of getting a message through is to....ta da post it. Yes that old stand by. Even more intersting to note, if the name had been rec.aquaria, I wouldn't have voted either way. I think this holds for about 75% of the voters, certainly most of the no voters who it seems don't give a damn about fish, but like to keep things consistant and put hobby activities into rec. BTW, should we start discussing sci.ichthyology :-) |-- |This article was made from the finest quality words and sentances. Minor |imperfections in syntax, like the grain in fine leather, serve to enhance |it's beauty. richard@gryphon.COM {routing site}!gryphon!richard -- Charles Anderson | caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com \ Disclaimer: I said what? ----------------/ caa@midgard.mn.org \ But CDC didn't. If someone deserves a cheap shot, by all means, give it to them.
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (11/14/89)
In article <22007@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <830@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes: >>Me, thrice, revoting because of flippant "acknowledgements" from Sexton >>which could have been construed as rejections. > >Flippant ? You got the same response all no voters got in the 1 week of >3 that I sent ACK's: a polite note that article id blah de blah in >news.groups was a representative posting of the proposed sci.aquaria >group in case they were mired down in the bullshit. > >What were you expecting ? A thank you, basket of flowers and a Maserati >like the yes voters ? I may not like the results of the sci.aquaria vote, but I do appreciate your sense of humor! -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (11/14/89)
In article <10449@thorin.cs.unc.edu> oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes: >Perhaps we should have a list of who can and can't vote. Yeah, >that's it. We could call it the, Oh, I don't know, let's >just call it the Party, say. Then, only folk who we KNOW will >vote the patterns we want them to will get to vote, because >we will only let the Party folk vote. Yeah. That's better than >allowing just anybody to go out an campaign for a vote. I say >it's time to get rid of the czars around here, and move on to >a real Politburo. Your remark is meant to be sarcastic, but there it wouldn't be unreasonable to let only system administrators vote -- after all, they represent the ones paying the bills for this mess. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (11/14/89)
[peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) recently posted that: | |Horsefeathers yourself. He should have acceded to the wishes of the |obvious majority (and don't give me any bloody grief over that word. I have no trouble with the word, just your supposed psychic ability to devine the "wishes of the obvious majority". Perhaps you should share your strange psi sense with the good folks on sci.skeptic and let 'em debunk 'em for you! |It's obvious by now that his vote doesn't represent the wishes of |anyone but Richard Sexton) and held the vote for "REC.AQUARIA". He |told me in as many words that rec.aquaria was probably a better name. | You haven't been paying attention. The two variants are both suited to groups, but the focus/charters are different. No one has argued that there might not be sufficient interest from aquarium hobbiest to have a rec group. The contention Richard made was that there was also enough interest amongst those who take things a little more seriously to support a group. So? Why not subscribe and see what happens. You might be surprised at what the "majority" discuss! | |No, it's yet another precedent. Like sci.skeptic. Except this time the |guy who got the group created hasn't admitted he made a mistake. | Oh, gad. The old precedent thing. Even in courts of law what is accepted as precedent tends to vary over time according to the make up and political biases of the judges/juries. Give it a rest! And PLEEEZE stop picking on sci.skeptic! It is a lively group with plenty of interesting discussion. It would seem that those interested in the topics find the group just fine... but then I don't have your clairvoyant powers. |I think the next stage would be to campaign in Europe to get the major |sites to go along with a boycott. After all, it's they who he really |was attacking. |-- Oh, wow! Go for it! You must not have a lot of important things to do, Peter. Maybe you can get the Wall of Shame restored while you're at it. Wouldn't want to start any bad precidents! (Ok, that was a cheap shot.) - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Millions long for immortality who don't UUCP: buita \ know what to do with themselves on a talcott } !encore!cook on a rainy Sunday afternoon." bellcore / - D.P. Barron
msw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Matt S Wartell) (11/15/89)
Greg Woods writes: >>vms.cis.pitt.edu YES: 22 NO: 0 > The Pitt site doesn't surprise me in the least. There is a user there who >has a personal vendetta against me because I had the audacity to use the word >"damn" once in a message to him and offended his delicate sensitivities. >I even got mail from one person there who said he was voting for it solely >on the basis that I was opposed to it. I noticed a peculiar regularity in the names coming from pitt.edu so I did a little checking. All of the logins below were counted as valid votes in the sci.aquaria vote. vms.cis.pitt.edu$ finger droopy fireman1 charging advisor DROOPY (Jeff Carpenter) is not logged in Last logged in: Friday, 10-Nov-1989 18:10 FIREMAN1 (Jeff Carpenter) is not logged in Last logged in: Friday, 10-Nov-1989 15:25 CHARGING (Jeffrey,J Carpenter) is not logged in Last logged in: Wednesday, 25-Oct-1989 19:20 ADVISOR (Test Query Account) is not logged in. Last logged in: Wednesday 25-Oct-1989 19:20 {the vms cluster is the main computer at pitt with student logins of the form ...st[1-9] Our last school year ended in late april of 1989. Mr. Carpenter has at least some system privileges on the vms system} vms.cis.pitt.edu$ finger {many names} ABEST (Ann,B Edson) is not logged in. Last logged in: Wednesday, 7-Dec-1988 10:00 DMNST (Dawn,M Nance) is not logged in. Last logged in: Thursday, 15-Dec-1988 13:46 DMWST3 (Diane,M Williams) is not logged in. Last logged in: Wednesday, 26-Apr-1989 12:10 KDHST2 (Kelly,D Hollis) is not logged in. Last logged in: Thursday, 13-Apr-1989 13:31 MAPST9 (Margaret,A Poodolak) is not logged in. Last logged in: Tuesday, 18-Apr-1989 12:22 SSHST (Stacy,S Hunter) is not logged in. Last logged in: Sunday, 23-Apr-1989 22:29 YKOST (Yoshiko, Koda) is not logged in. Last logged in: Wednesday, 7-Dec-1988 15:30 {fire.cis.pitt.edu is Mr. Carpenter's personal unix workstation} unix.cis.pitt.edu% finger britt@fire ed@fire bricker@fire [fire.cis.pitt.edu] Login name: britt In real life: Tom Britt Directory: /usr/users/guest Last login Sun Oct 29 21:22 on tty04 Project: What am I working on? No Plan. Login name: ed In real life: Ed Kamphaus Directory: /usr/users/guest Last login Sun Oct 29 21:22 on tty04 Project: What am I working on? No Plan. Login name: bricker In real life: Randy Bricker Directory: /usr/users/guest Last login Sun Oct 29 21:22 on tty04 Project: What am I working on? No Plan. -- matt wartell, university of pittsburgh msw@unix.cis.pitt.edu
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/15/89)
In article <10351@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes: > [peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) recently posted that: > |Horsefeathers yourself. He should have acceded to the wishes of the > |obvious majority (and don't give me any bloody grief over that word. > I have no trouble with the word, just your supposed psychic ability > to devine the "wishes of the obvious majority". [etc] Ridicule is an effective tactic if one wants to distract attention from the topic at hand, but when Richard posts articles to many groups and sends out mass mailings that say, effectively "vote for sci.aquaria if you want an aquarium group" it kind of dilutes his claim that sci.aquaria is the name of choice. > You haven't been paying attention. The two variants are both suited > to groups, but the focus/charters are differen Just because you take something "a little more seriously" doesn't make it any less a hobby. Time and money does not a science make. Maybe I should take some of my hobbies and try to make them "sci" groups. sci.hot-air-ballooning sci.hacking Then again, raising a family demands a hell of a lot of time and money, and requires one to learn all sortos of new skills. sci.kids sci.homebuying > Oh, gad. The old precedent thing. Yeh. Watch for "sci.virtual-reality" in an active file near you. Are you proud? > PLEEEZE stop picking on sci.skeptic! It is a lively group with > plenty of interesting discussion. Yes. Until I unsubscribed to it this morning it had the largest kill-file of any group I read. It's one of the top "talk" groups going. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (11/16/89)
oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes: ) >Perhaps we should have a list of who can and can't vote. Yeah, ) >that's it. We could call it the, Oh, I don't know, let's ) >just call it the Party, say. ... dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: )Your remark is meant to be sarcastic, but there it wouldn't be unreasonable )to let only system administrators vote -- after all, they represent the )ones paying the bills for this mess. It's a great idea, but let's complete it. Each system administrator's vote should be weighted by the size of his system's budget. )Remember Tiananmen Square. Yeah. -- * Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf *
birwin@ficc.uu.net (Bob Irwin) (11/16/89)
In article <10351@encore.Encore.COM>, Dale C. Cook replies: > [peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) recently posted: > | > |It's obvious by now that his vote doesn't represent the wishes of > |anyone but Richard Sexton) and held the vote for "REC.AQUARIA". He > |told me in as many words that rec.aquaria was probably a better name. > . . . . The two variants are both suited > to groups, but the focus/charters are different. No one has argued > that there might not be sufficient interest from aquarium hobbiest > to have a rec group. The contention Richard made was that there > was also enough interest amongst those who take things a little > more seriously to support a group. . . . Then, why wasn't there a call to create sci.aquari* (leaving alt.aquaria for the less scientific)? By moving the group, the recreational aquarium owner is "invited" to VOTE for (and join) the sci group. I feel that most of the group members would vote for any distribution/name when faced with losing their current group. It was a good way to garner votes, but a poor way to gain a more scientific dialog. An illustration: ------------ Once upon a time there was a popular pick-up basketball game with pro, semi-pro, and amateur players. A player decided that he wanted a higher quality game, so he said, "I want a professional game. I propose moving this game to a professional arena. Please support and vote for my proposal. By the way I'm taking the ball and closing this facility. There will be no more games in this gym, so if you amateurs want basketball, vote yes. If you can play at the professional level, great! If not, we professional players will let you play a little and you can call yourselves professionals. Besides, we'll get better media coverage!" --------- Will there be support or flames for "unscientific" postings in the new sci.groupia? -- Bob Irwin birwin@ficc.uu.net Ferranti, Sugarland, TX (713) 274-5456 "Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic, and so am I." (Thanks to John Peterson)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/16/89)
>It's a great idea, but let's complete it. Each system administrator's >vote should be weighted by the size of his system's budget. 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... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes if one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
msw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Matt S Wartell) (11/16/89)
In article <20658@unix.cis.pitt.edu> I write:
[ a long list of apparantly bad votes ]
Of course, after reading the message I posted, someone had a fit
of creativity and changed the `real' names of the users that I
had mentioned. On vms.cis.pitt.edu the following users have
had their names changed:
DROOPY (Mr. Droopy) is not logged in.
FIREMAN1 (Mr. Fireman) is not logged in.
CHARGING (Mr. Charging) is not logged in.
ADVISOR (Mr. Advisor) is not logged in.
And on fire.cis.pitt.edu, the mystery users got their own home
directories and their .project files were removed. However,
as of this posting, the peculiar simultaneous logins on the
same terminal have not been changed (although I'm sure they will be
shortly).
[fire.cis.pitt.edu]
Login name: ed In real life: Ed Kamphaus
Directory: /usr/users/ed
Last login Sun Oct 29 21:22 on tty04
No Plan.
Login name: britt In real life: Tom Britt
Directory: /usr/users/britt
Last login Sun Oct 29 21:22 on tty04
No Plan.
Login name: bricker In real life: Randy Bricker
Directory: /usr/users/bricker
Last login Sun Oct 29 21:22 on tty04
No Plan.
I expect the indignant rebuttal to my data collection will come
shortly, pointing out the `forgeries' contained in my original posting.
I also imagine that those who chose to believe me will do so, and
that those who wish to think that I am lying will do so as well.
The student accounts that I reported as not having logged in since at
least April still show the same login times, but its only a matter
of time before they can be changed as well.
If there is any object lesson to be learned, it is that our medium
is not to be `trusted'; certainly not a novel lesson, nor one that
really gains much by repetition.
--
matt wartell, university of pittsburgh msw@unix.cis.pitt.eduhougen@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dean Hougen) (11/17/89)
In article <36510@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) 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... >Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA Chuq, listen up. People will regularly contribute to a system if they feel that the system is in some way theirs. Not soley theirs, but a sort of joint property that they can have some say in. Take away their right (priv.) to participate in the decisions of USENET and the users will go. Not all of them, but a good number. What some people seem to be forgetting, is that those who pay the bills may do so out of greedy self-interest, but many of the users participate because they feel the system is for them. They honestly feel that USENET is for the USER. And they will leave if you tell them differently. Take away my right to vote, and I will take away my contributions. (You won't miss me Chuq? I won't miss you.) Dean Hougen -- "Lets lynch the landlord. Lets lynch the landlord. Lets lynch the landlord- man." - DK
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/17/89)
In article <2903@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >Your remark is meant to be sarcastic, but there it wouldn't be unreasonable >to let only system administrators vote -- after all, they represent the >ones paying the bills for this mess. Um, I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have a line in their job descriptions that specifically delegates to them the authority to decide which USENET groups to carry. Valerie Maslak
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/17/89)
According to maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak): >Um, I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have a line in their >job descriptions that specifically delegates to them the authority >to decide which USENET groups to carry. Valerie would no doubt win such a bet. However, her point is irrelevant. Job descriptions are often vague and general. A simple phrase such as "maintain electronic communications" covers newsgroup selection. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/18/89)
hougen@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dean Hougen) writes: >Chuq, listen up. People will regularly contribute to a system if they feel >that the system is in some way theirs. Dean, something like 99% of the people on this net never vote anyway, and I'd say a good portion of those either don't know of the newsgroup voting or don't care. We could take away the whole voting priviledge and they'd never notice. Also, please remember that this voting stuff is a pretty recent innovation on USENET, and the net didn't dry up and disappear back before it was allowed. >Take away their right (priv.) to >participate in the decisions of USENET and the users will go. Point of order. Most folks have a 'right' to participate in USENET decisions only at the sufference of the people in charge of USENET. The people in charge of USENET are the people who maintain the software, sites and connections that make the net possible. Those are the people who have a right to make decisions about USENET. The people who are passengers have no 'rights' (just as a passenger on a bus has no 'right' to tell the bus driver to go somewhere other than where the bus route says it should go). That the bus drivers give them the ability to make some decisions doesn't imply that those decisions are somehow 'rights'. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes is one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/18/89)
hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu writes:
Take away their right (priv.) to participate in the decisions of
USENET and the users will go. Not all of them, but a good number.
GEnie and CompuServe might disagree with that assessment.cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (11/18/89)
Boy, I usually don't take on the net.pharts, but this must be my day to get lucky. :-) [chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) recently posted that: | |Point of order. Most folks have a 'right' to participate in USENET decisions |only at the sufference of the people in charge of USENET. The people in |charge of USENET are the people who maintain the software, sites and |connections that make the net possible. Those are the people who have a |right to make decisions about USENET. The people who are passengers have no |'rights' (just as a passenger on a bus has no 'right' to tell the bus driver |to go somewhere other than where the bus route says it should go). That the |bus drivers give them the ability to make some decisions doesn't imply that |those decisions are somehow 'rights'. | This is probably accurate for the situation at the moment, but it is pretty unrealistic to project this much into the future. Look at the trends away from large mainframes towards small but powerful workstations (that network just fine, thank you.) Couple this with the trend towards users having independent home stations. And then throw in a dash of public access feeds available at increasingly reasonable rates. Chuq, you may fly this tattered flag a few more years, but it's days are definitely limited. Point two: the deplorable lack of any kind of loyality towards employees or companies is driving people to become independent contractors -- emphasis on INDEPENDENT. Point three: (this is really reaching but, hey, it's late Friday afternoon...) If the recent experiences in Eastern Europe say anything, they say to me that you should never count out the (seemingly) disenfranchised will of the majority. USENET may not be a democracy, but it too must exist at the sufference of its users. Take away the people and you've got a useless collection of modems and wires with "great potential" to do something! - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Clever people seem not to feel the natural UUCP: buita \ pleasure of bewilderments, and are always talcott } !encore!cook answering questions when the chief relish bellcore / of life is to go on asking them." - Frank Moore Colby
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/18/89)
In article <17049@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: | Chuq, listen up. People will regularly contribute to a system if they feel | that the system is in some way theirs. Not soley theirs, but a sort of joint | property that they can have some say in. Take away their right (priv.) to | participate in the decisions of USENET and the users will go. Not to let a FACT bother you, but the net was run by executive decision for years and the users didn't go. I didn't like all the decisions, but they were made on technical reasons (for the most part). Maybe too much so, in some cases. The users didn't leave then, and they won't now. Looking at the readership of this group compared to the total readers should put your head back straight. Most people don't care enough about the voting process to read the group. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/18/89)
In article <25641F75.28203@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak): >>Um, I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have a line in their >>job descriptions that specifically delegates to them the authority >>to decide which USENET groups to carry. >Valerie would no doubt win such a bet. However, her point is irrelevant. >Job descriptions are often vague and general. A simple phrase such as >"maintain electronic communications" covers newsgroup selection. Does it indeed, if what we're talking about is really one person inflicting his or her personal prejudices on an entire workspace? If I decide that X computers are better than Y computers so I won't carry any X groups, or that I hate children so I won't carry misc.kids???? Or even, dare I say it, that soc.women is dominated by a bunch of manhaters and I'm male and feel threatened by it??? No, at some point, what you're talking about is really a form of censorship based on personal prejudice, if the SA is not basing his or her decisions on clear employer-prescribed policy. Valerie Maslak Valerie Maslak
karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/18/89)
maslak@unix.sri.com writes: >Job descriptions are often vague and general. A simple phrase such as >"maintain electronic communications" covers newsgroup selection. Does it indeed, if what we're talking about is really one person inflicting his or her personal prejudices on an entire workspace? The personal prejudice of the staff at this site quite arbitrarily decided that the 3 MUAs we would support are Berkeley Mail, Columbia MM, and GNU Emacs RMAIL. Any others exist more or less by accident, and get no support. Similarly, we officially support rn and GNUS (sort of) with no NN or vn, and Gnews is installed but also gets no support, and I don't think I've ever bothered to make sure that readnews and vnews got installed on anything but the Pyramids. The entire workspace of email and Usenet communications is pretty much arbitrarily defined, just like that. My (just "my," not even "the collective staff's") personal prejudice determines what newgroup messages get honored around here. I don't hear much complaint about it; the once or twice someone has questioned my choice, I've explained my decision and the questioner has walked away apparently satisfied. Personal prejudice does that. No, it's not part of our job descriptions, other than "perform sysadmin duties" (y'know, I don't think my job description actually says one word about sysadmin in the first place, hm), but nonetheless that's how it gets done. One could consider at length how new system purchases get made, given that the selection criteria for such systems usually involve highly prejudicial outlooks on what sorts of features a new system must provide. The list is endless. Personal prejudice (which in such cases is really "personal experience and skill") is how most everything gets done. Describing it as "prejudice" is, to me, just using emotionally loaded wording. --Karl
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/19/89)
According to hougen@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dean Hougen): >Take away their right (priv.) to participate in the decisions of >USENET and the users will go. Not all of them, but a good number. Imminent death of Usenet predicted. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/19/89)
As quoted from <36590@apple.Apple.COM> by chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach): +--------------- | hougen@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dean Hougen) writes: | >Take away their right (priv.) to | >participate in the decisions of USENET and the users will go. | | Point of order. Most folks have a 'right' to participate in USENET decisions | only at the sufference of the people in charge of USENET. The people in +--------------- Just to give a concrete example: on ncoast, news exists specifically because Rich Garrett chooses to allow it to exist (and, to a lesser extent, because I'm willing to take time to keep it running). Should Rich ever decide to change his mind, ncoast will stop getting news -- and, like it or not, you (if you were a user on ncoast) would have no say in it. You could pack up and go, but *that* is your right. Ordering system administrators to give you something for nothing goes over with system administrators like a lead balloon -- and the system administrators (system owners, actually, but for ncoast they are identical) have the right to run their systems in whatever way they choose, regardless of whatever the users might want. (If you use a computer system at work, do you have "the right" to insist that computer games be available during working hours? Same thing.) The Usenet exists on the sufferance of the system administrators who take an active role in keeping it running. If enough of us stop doing so, either the Usenet will collapse because nobody's fixing the problems that inevitably crop up in such a large distributed system -- or another set of administrators will take over the job of keeping it working. In which case the users will again get their "free news" at the sufferance of the sysadmins. NOTHING comes for free, and the Usenet is no exception. You can threaten to pick up your marbles and go home if the sysadmins won't give you the free Usenet news that you consider to be your "right," but this presupposes that the sysadmins consider free-loaders to be valuable. In the case that they don't, your "threat" is worthless -- and I suspect that most sysadmins would take that stance if push came to shove. Whining about how sysadmins are "evil" or etc. because of this stance won't get you anywhere either. If Rich ever drops news on ncoast, chances are it'll be because of the phone bills -- and you can whine all you want, but in that case whining won't help Rich pay the phone bills and he would be completely justified in his actions. You won't have the right to complain because you won't be paying those bills. If that sounds "wrong" to you, you're in the wrong system -- the phone company couldn't care less about your desire to get news for free, they insist on getting paid. Just try p*ssing and moaning to *them* about it. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/19/89)
As quoted from <10397@encore.Encore.COM> by cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook): +--------------- | Boy, I usually don't take on the net.pharts, but this must be my day | to get lucky. :-) | | [chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) recently posted that: | |Point of order. Most folks have a 'right' to participate in USENET decisions | |only at the sufference of the people in charge of USENET. The people in | | afternoon...) If the recent experiences in Eastern Europe say anything, | they say to me that you should never count out the (seemingly) | disenfranchised will of the majority. USENET may not be a democracy, | but it too must exist at the sufference of its users. Take away the | people and you've got a useless collection of modems and wires with | "great potential" to do something! +--------------- Take away the money and you get the same situation. Just who do you think you are to *demand* that I finance your daily Usenet fix? Like it or not, the Usenet exists at the whim of the people who pay for it. Antagonize them and you'll have to find someone else to pay for it, or the net dies. The phone company isn't going to be impressed with your arguments; they expect to be paid. (Disbelievers are invited to subscribe to alt.cosuard.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
pjg@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (11/19/89)
In article <5831@unix.SRI.COM>, Valerie Maslak writes: maslak>In article <25641F75.28203@ateng.com> Chip Salzenberg writes: chip>According to maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak): maslak>Um, I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have a line in their maslak>job descriptions that specifically delegates to them the authority maslak>to decide which USENET groups to carry. chip>Valerie would no doubt win such a bet. However, her point is irrelevant. chip>Job descriptions are often vague and general. maslak> Does it indeed, if what we're talking about is really one person maslak>inflicting his or her personal prejudices on an entire workspace? maslak>If I decide that X computers are better than Y computers so I won't maslak>carry any X groups, or . . . maslak>No, at some point, what you're talking about is really a form of maslak>censorship based on personal prejudice, if the SA is not basing his maslak>or her decisions on clear employer-prescribed policy. yow! i can't believe how people continue to confuse usenet (i'm not real life but i play one on tv) with reality. get a life people, it doesn't matter all that much. like some real life company it going to bother placing newsgroup management guidelines in a job description. and drag out your five (or even 50) counter-examples. my job description goes on at length but it can be summarized as ``get the cycles to the users, make the machines useful and be a competent professional while achieving the first two." i would expect that most companies that would reserve the right to usenet content to some higher authority would dismiss usenet as the colossal waste of time that it often is. down with personal prejudice (errr, or was that simply a matter of opinion) and three cheers for *clear* employer-prescribed policy. perhaps SRI should make their policy available as a model to us all. but not before they have that unix.uucp header fixed.
bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu (B Maruti) (11/19/89)
In article <2175@garnet.ssd.cdc.com> caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com (Charles A. Anderson) writes: > >I voted no and it did not show up, maybe the mail got eaten but I still >would like to see my vote counted. >-- >Charles Anderson | caa@garnet.ssd.cdc.com \ Disclaimer: I said what? And, I would like to see my NO vote counted, too. - Maruti bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (11/20/89)
In article <5805@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: > Um, I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have a line in their >job descriptions that specifically delegates to them the authority >to decide which USENET groups to carry. >Valerie Maslak It is better to ask forgivness, than to ask permission. -- The Lone Ranger Terry Ok, he didn't say it, but it looked cool. After all, who appointed HIM? -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - as sung by Sally Rogers
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) (11/20/89)
In article <25641F75.28203@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Valerie would no doubt win such a bet. However, her point is irrelevant. >Job descriptions are often vague and general. A simple phrase such as >"maintain electronic communications" covers newsgroup selection. Yes you're quite right! My description says "other duties as required". Excuse me, I gotta get back to mopping the floor. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - as sung by Sally Rogers
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (11/21/89)
[allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) recently posted that: | |Take away the money and you get the same situation. Just who do you think you |are to *demand* that I finance your daily Usenet fix? | But so long as the burden is widely distributed and no one site is asked to pay more than a fair share.. And how is it that YOU finance MY news fix?? If you pass an uncensored feed to your leaf sites, you may hope that whomever feeds you your news will not filter out those groups that you (and your employer) feel are worthwhile. Sounds like cooperation to me. |Like it or not, the Usenet exists at the whim of the people who pay for it. |Antagonize them and you'll have to find someone else to pay for it, or the net |dies. The phone company isn't going to be impressed with your arguments; they |expect to be paid. (Disbelievers are invited to subscribe to alt.cosuard.) | |++Brandon |-- I have no problems with that. I'd point out to you that telephone costs are becoming a "cost of doing business" line item these days. I'd further point out that newspapers and TV stations are private businesses in it for a profit. But when they start dicky-dooing with what gets covered and who gets broadcast they have to conform to the "rules" set up by the majority. Obviously any site on USENET can set up any damn policy it can pay for. But if enough other sites don't like those policies, you might find yourself an island with a lot of pretty computer hardware and a lot of modems and nobody to talk to or exchange news with. - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Millions long for immortality who don't UUCP: buita \ know what to do with themselves on a talcott } !encore!cook on a rainy Sunday afternoon." bellcore / - D.P. Barron
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (11/21/89)
In article <10397@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes: |[chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) recently posted that: || ||Point of order. Most folks have a 'right' to participate in USENET decisions ||only at the sufference of the people in charge of USENET. The people in ||charge of USENET are the people who maintain the software, sites and ||connections that make the net possible. Those are the people who have a ||right to make decisions about USENET. [...] || [...] || |This is probably accurate for the situation at the moment, but it is |pretty unrealistic to project this much into the future. Look at the |trends away from large mainframes towards small but powerful workstations |(that network just fine, thank you.) Couple this with the trend towards |users having independent home stations. And then throw in a dash of |public access feeds available at increasingly reasonable rates. Chuq, |you may fly this tattered flag a few more years, but it's days are |definitely limited. Why does this change things? People having home work stations does not automatically provide free long-distance access to other people having home work stations. It doesn't matter how many hangers-on there are in the "local calling area", someone has to pay to move the bits if you are on "the net as we know it". Maybe people in a few areas will get together to share costs - fine, in that area they *are* the people in charge of USENET and (within their area) they make the net possible. The fact that they don't run on a mainframe has nothing to do with the fact that some (usually small) group of people/organizations do the work and spend the money to provide USENET to (usually many) machines in their area. |Point two: the deplorable lack of any kind of loyality towards employees |or companies is driving people to become independent contractors -- |emphasis on INDEPENDENT. And if these independent contractors want USENET, they either find a local feed, or they spend the money to import it. |Point three: (this is really reaching but, hey, it's late Friday |afternoon...) If the recent experiences in Eastern Europe say anything, |they say to me that you should never count out the (seemingly) |disenfranchised will of the majority. USENET may not be a democracy, |but it too must exist at the sufference of its users. Take away the |people and you've got a useless collection of modems and wires with |"great potential" to do something! Take away the people paying the bills and you've got a bunch of local bulletin boards with potential largely related to the size of your local calling area. -- 80386 - hardware demonstrating the fractal nature of warts. | John Macdonald EMS/LIM - software demonstrating the fractal nature of warts. | jmm@eci386
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (11/21/89)
In article <5805@unix.SRI.COM>, maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes: = In article <2903@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: [ .... ] = >to let only system administrators vote -- after all, they represent the = >ones paying the bills for this mess. = = Um, I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have a line in their = job descriptions that specifically delegates to them the authority = to decide which USENET groups to carry. = = Valerie Maslak I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have anything in their job description that specifically authorizes them to carry ANY groups, and if the upper management levels found out just how much time and resources are expended to do so, some of us would receive rather clear instructions about what { company school government } resources are for. A lot of us are mixing usenet traffic with normal mail and transfer traffic sort of on the sly. Above me are five levels of management, to the chairman of the board. I KNOW the top three levels haven't the slightest idea that I'm pulling down a nearly complete news feed nightly. My best defenses are making the calls at night, and doing most of the admin stuff at night. Otherwise, I'd be in some hot water. I'd hope I could show some way I was minimizing the expense.... -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (11/21/89)
In article <17049@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: > >Chuq, listen up. People will regularly contribute to a system if they feel >that the system is in some way theirs.a ... > ... Take away their right (priv.) to >participate in the decisions of USENET and the users will go. > ... What some people seem to be forgetting, is that those who >pay the bills may do so out of greedy self-interest, but many of the users >participate because they feel the system is for them. They honestly feel that >USENET is for the USER. And they will leave if you tell them differently. > >Take away my right to vote, and I will take away my contributions. >(You won't miss me Chuq? I won't miss you.) Strange. It seems that you are saying that a system-administrator should care whether a non-paying user stays or goes... What a strange idea! On MY system, I make the rules for MY convienience -- if the users don't like it, they are free to find someone else to give them access. As it is, they get a lot more than they pay for. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (11/21/89)
In article <10397@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes: >[chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) recently posted that: >| >|Point of order. Most folks have a 'right' to participate in USENET decisions >|only at the sufference of the people in charge of USENET. >| >This is probably accurate for the situation at the moment, but it is >pretty unrealistic to project this much into the future. Look at the >trends away from large mainframes towards small but powerful workstations >(that network just fine, thank you.) Couple this with the trend towards >users having independent home stations... But then the USERS will become system administrators. In fact, they will be paying the bills for their (small) part of the net. Their 'rights' would then increase in proportion. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave
justin@inmet.inmet.com (11/22/89)
Getting back to the original topic a bit... A lot of people seem to be missing a major point. You're so wrapped up in asking who should or shouldn't be enfranchised in the voting process, that you've almost entirely forgotten the *purpose* of that process: to assess interest in a group. In general, a sysadmin has only the vaguest idea of what his or her users are actually going to read, so it seems rather difficult for him or her to make a fair vote. In other words, I'm not calling an "only-sysadmins-vote" system unfair. I'm saying that it is totally, utterly, and completely *pointless*... -- Justin du Coeur
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/22/89)
In article <KARL.89Nov17225453@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >maslak@unix.sri.com writes: > >Job descriptions are often vague and general. A simple phrase such as > >"maintain electronic communications" covers newsgroup selection. > Does it indeed, if what we're talking about is really one person > inflicting his or her personal prejudices on an entire workspace? We're all clear that I'm not the > > and that I am the > lines, right? But from here on out, the * lines belong to Karl: *The entire workspace of email and Usenet communications is pretty much *arbitrarily defined, just like that. My (just "my," not even "the *collective staff's") personal prejudice determines what newgroup *messages get honored around here. I don't hear much complaint about *it; the once or twice someone has questioned my choice, I've explained *my decision and the questioner has walked away apparently satisfied. So, what would happen if they weren't satisfied, Karl? It's that scenario I'm concerned about, I guess. The problems with USENET don't seem to come up when everyone is in happy harmony, they come up when one or a few people are "bucking the trend." *Personal prejudice does that. No, it's not part of our job *descriptions, other than "perform sysadmin duties" (y'know, I don't *think my job description actually says one word about sysadmin in the *first place, hm), but nonetheless that's how it gets done. One could *consider at length how new system purchases get made, given that the *selection criteria for such systems usually involve highly prejudicial *outlooks on what sorts of features a new system must provide. The *list is endless. Personal prejudice (which in such cases is really *"personal experience and skill") is how most everything gets done. *Describing it as "prejudice" is, to me, just using emotionally loaded *wording. Karl, I can see that choosing a new system well could entail more than prejudice. But choosing newsgroups, in the absence of either clearly established workgroup consensus or employer guidelines? How do your "experience and skill" enter into it? Valerie Maslak
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/22/89)
In article <410@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: >transfer traffic sort of on the sly. Above me are five levels of >management, to the chairman of the board. I KNOW the top three >levels haven't the slightest idea that I'm pulling down a nearly >complete news feed nightly. My best defenses are making the calls >at night, and doing most of the admin stuff at night. Otherwise, >I'd be in some hot water. I'd hope I could show some way I was >minimizing the expense.... Gary, all that is well and good, but is what is going on your hobby, or a benefit for the employees of the place you work? If it's the former, how is what you're doing any different from stealing computer time? If it's the latter, then the benefit has to be perceived as one by most employees, or maybe you SHOULDN'T be providing it at company expense. Also, if your exercise of privilege as SA ends up being discriminatory, or even severely unfair, don't you think other employees should have the right to some recourse, without the threat (express or implied) that they will harm USENET? At some point, folks, USENET is either going to join the real world and come out of the shadows and play by real rules, or it's going to stay a hackers heaven and be useless to most people. The "it's just our little secret" policy imposes some limits, you know.... Valerie Maslak
karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/23/89)
me:
*I don't hear much complaint about [my choice of newgroups to honor];
*the once or twice someone has questioned my choice, I've explained
*my decision and the questioner has walked away apparently satisfied.
maslak@unix.sri.com writes:
So, what would happen if they weren't satisfied, Karl? It's that
scenario I'm concerned about, I guess. The problems with USENET
don't seem to come up when everyone is in happy harmony, they come
up when one or a few people are "bucking the trend."
Then we'd argue it out, and hopefully come to an agreement.
Eventually, since I'm the newsadmin here, what I say goes. One could
consider it something of a dictatorship; but I like to think that the
dictatorship is advised, and therefore benevolent. When the subject
of vmsnet.* came up, I posted something to osu.groups to ask what
other opinion was out there. No one answered, so I haven't bothered
to carry them. If someone wanted them, I'd probably carry them, even
though I am personally disinclined.
But choosing newsgroups, in the absence of either
clearly established workgroup consensus or employer guidelines? How do
your "experience and skill" enter into it?
Several ways.
I've been doing this sort of thing for quite a while, and I think I've
got a reasonable feel for what "makes sense" in the area of newsgroup
hierarchies. sci.aquaria didn't make sense, rec.org.sca did,
comp.women didn't but comp.society.women was a reasonable compromise.
Excessive political maneuvering on any side of an issue is an
indication to me that something has gone wrong. As a result, I ignore
certain classes of argument. The classes are pretty fuzzily defined,
of course. But I ignored (most of) the arguments over sci.aquaria (I
didn't post anything until after the voting was over), comp.women
(until rather late in the game), and the current vmsnet.* -vs-
comp.os.vms.* (I haven't said a word).
Some of the newsgroups which get created, especially in alt, give me
the willies for how I'd explain them to my superiors, should they
happen to take notice. They have taken such notice, occasionally.
(That is, the faculty around here have; they're not exactly my
superiors, but you can bet I'm not interested in having arguments with
them unless there's darn good reason.) That's the primary reason for
having ignored, e.g., alt.peeves, alt.stupidity, and alt.sex.[all
subgroups].
I know how the news works in this installation, and I know the details
of, for example, how much disc I've got to spend on news and how much
new newsgroups are going to cost me in additional filesystem space.
That's another reason for ignoring certain alt groups (utterly
pointless flaming) and for expiring everything under alt in 5 days or
less. I haven't actually rmgroup'd alt.flame itself just yet, but
it'll be a target pretty soon.
I may be hammering on alt too much, perhaps, but alt makes my point
the best. The same ideas apply elsewhere.
--Karlallbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/23/89)
As quoted from <10413@encore.Encore.COM> by cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook): +--------------- | [allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) recently posted that: | |Like it or not, the Usenet exists at the whim of the people who pay for it. | |Antagonize them and you'll have to find someone else to pay for it, or the | |net dies. The phone company isn't going to be impressed with your arguments; | |they expect to be paid. (Disbelievers are invited to subscribe to | |alt.cosuard.) | | I have no problems with that. I'd point out to you that telephone costs | are becoming a "cost of doing business" line item these days. I'd further +--------------- Which is perfectly all right when you're in business. Ncoast is not a business, we do not charge for use (although we request donations), and Rich Garrett pays a heck of a lot of money monthly with NO return. None. So you are going to order him to continue doing it, or threaten us with some ill- defined shunning? B*llsh*t. If the Usenet ever came down to that, ncoast would most assuredly drop it completely because it's no longer worth the hassle. But in any case, your "shunning" would have been initiated on *our* end already, so threatening to cut off what we have already refused is pretty meaningless. All this stuff and nonsense about "the will of the majority" with respect to propagation of the Usenet is worth exactly ZERO when you don't want to pay the monthly bills required to be involved with it. You'd do as well to cite the will of the majority in demanding a free newsfeed from UUNET (and good luck). ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (11/23/89)
In article <5971@unix.SRI.COM>, maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes: > Gary, all that is well and good, but is what is going on your > hobby, or a benefit for the employees of the place you work? > > If it's the former, how is what you're doing any different from > stealing computer time? > > If it's the latter, then the benefit has to be perceived as one by > most employees, or maybe you SHOULDN'T be providing it at company expense. You bring up an interesting point; since you brought it up, perhaps you could answer the following questions: 1. Why does YOUR organization, SRI, utilize its resources in behalf of Usenet? 2. In particular, why does your organization utilize its resources for the non-technical soc.* groups? 3. To what level of management is your organization aware of the use of its resources for Usenet? In particular, is this same level of management aware of non-technical use of resources, such as carrying soc.* groups? 4. Would your management be concerned if they were aware of the amount of time you spend using its resources to read and post to Usenet? In fairness, I will answer the above questions for my organization: 1. Because we feel that we derive extensive benefit from obtaining public domain software for the UNIX operating system, and obtain useful information about programming, UNIX system operation, and document preparation (we make extensive use of DWB and WWB). 2. We utilize minimum resources for non-technical groups; we used to distribute full feeds for almost 4 years, but the garbage volume in the soc.*, talk.* and alt.* became excessive and we made some radical excisions about a year ago. We do not distribute alt.* or talk.*, distribute only about 30% of rec.*, and distribute only soc.culture.jewish and soc.women. We distribute soc.culture.jewish because we feed it to a non-profit organization, and we distribute soc.women based upon a specific request. 3. At the highest level of management, President and CEO (to place this in perspective, my organization has about 110 employees in its various operations). Yes. 4. No. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?"
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/24/89)
In article <2932@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> writes: >But then the USERS will become system administrators. In fact, they will >be paying the bills for their (small) part of the net. Their 'rights' >would then increase in proportion. Sounds fair to me. When you boil it all down, a person only has the rights he/she is prepared to pay for, one way or the other. The exchange medium (method of payment) may vary, but historically the principle applies. >Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- > | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave Ed. A. Hew, SCO Authorized Technical Trainer, XeniTec Consulting Services edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/24/89)
In article <41800010@inmet> justin@inmet.inmet.com writes: >A lot of people seem to be missing a major point. You're so wrapped up in >asking who should or shouldn't be enfranchised in the voting process, that >you've almost entirely forgotten the *purpose* of that process: to assess >interest in a group. In general, a sysadmin has only the vaguest idea of >what his or her users are actually going to read, so it seems rather >difficult for him or her to make a fair vote. > >In other words, I'm not calling an "only-sysadmins-vote" system unfair. I'm >saying that it is totally, utterly, and completely *pointless*... How would my "sysadmin vote" be "pointless" considering that I would have solicited the opinions of my users (being a generous sort of person who values the opinions of the intelligent individuals I allow to have access to my system)? Certainly, in the final analysis, I'm sure that I weigh my opinion more heavily than that of junior users I just created accounts for. Those that participate and contribute currently have respected comments evaluated, as opposed to ignored. I doubt that *my* users would disagree. It is precisely the "interest" factor that I do gauge, within the established hierarchy that we appear to have agreed to. Yes, I indeed will maintain the right to make the final decision on *my* system (I personally paid for it, the modems, the phone lines, the multi-serial card, the larger drives....., the taxes), but I have not yet reached the point where my mind is so made up that I don't wish to be confused with facts. Are conditions so different throughout USENET that the situation here is out in left field in comparison WRT news? Yes, there is value to having "users", but simply consider how many users you'd have without someone to pay for and maintain "the system". > -- Justin du Coeur Ed. A. Hew, SCO Authorized Technical Trainer, XeniTec Consulting Services edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (11/25/89)
In article <5971@unix.SRI.COM>, maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes: > In article <410@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: > >transfer traffic sort of on the sly. Above me are five levels of > > [.....] > Gary, all that is well and good, but is what is going on your > hobby, or a benefit for the employees of the place you work? Please clarify whose opinion you want on that...a) mine, b) the users, c) my supervisors, d) our VPs, or e) the chairman of the boards? Responses will vary from "very useful and valuable, a great resource" to "I don't care if we've already paid for the line time". > If it's the former, how is what you're doing any different from > stealing computer time? If I were the only one reading news, and refusing to make it available to anyone else, I'd be stealing computer and phone time. > If it's the latter, then the benefit has to be perceived as one by > most employees, or maybe you SHOULDN'T be providing it at company > expense. [begin break] Perception of what is a benefit and what is not varies greatly from employee to upper management. Employees around here consider a workstation to design gate arrays a desperate need. Upper management considers it an unnecessary expense. We don't have a workstation in this entire division. (Our government div has a few--the cheapest and most under-equipped that they could get.) > [end break] Also, if your exercise of privilege as SA ends up being > discriminatory, or even severely unfair, don't you think other > employees should have the right to some recourse, without the threat > (express or implied) that they will harm USENET? If my boss tells me to stop receiving anything except comp.all, news.all, and control, I'd consider that severely unfair. I'll also stop receiving talk.all, rec.all, sci.all, etc. If anyone around here has problems with what I do, they have the recourse of sci34hub!oscar. So far, the only complaints have been when I've lost a few things to do in the overload, and those were promptly fixed. I have a responsibility to ALL the users to keep any one from crashing the system, damaging someone elses' file, and so on. Whether or not I like someone doesn't determine their access to system resources. I'm also not going to dedicate a 300MB drive to one user just so they can archive the rec groups, when the software development machine runs around 80% of capacity all the time; I'd put the drive in there. There are things I HAVE to do as an admin. I have to keep everything up. I have to fix it as quickly as possible when it breaks. If someone keeps causing problems, I have to step on their access privledges. If I were to put someone in a restricted shell because they beat me in contract bridge at lunch, I wouldn't be an admin for long. > At some point, folks, USENET is either going to join the real > world and come out of the shadows and play by real rules, or > it's going to stay a hackers heaven and be useless to most people. > > The "it's just our little secret" policy imposes some limits, you > know.... Yeah, right. The chairman of the board hasn't designed anything in 25 years. Explain to him why the AMD29000 is more suited to your application than the Intel 80960 (or whatever they call it), even though we do more business with Intel. Explain what CASE is, and why you want to spend $20K for a good package to do it. While you're at it, explain it to the corporate counsel, too. Sorry, but the top brass is so out of touch with the technical world, all they'll see is the number with the $ in front of it. You're getting by without it now, so you don't really need it. (Improved efficiency has been explained many times, without success. We get what we can how we can, and don't send them a memo whenever we find a workaround that lets us get something useful done.) > Valerie Maslak -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/25/89)
In article <10413@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes: >[allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) recently posted that: >| >|Like it or not, the Usenet exists at the whim of the people who pay for it. >|Antagonize them and you'll have to find someone else to pay for it, or the net >|dies. The phone company isn't going to be impressed with your arguments; they >|expect to be paid. (Disbelievers are invited to subscribe to alt.cosuard.) >|-- >I have no problems with that. I'd point out to you that telephone costs >are becoming a "cost of doing business" line item these days. In order to consider an expense to be a "cost of doing business", that assumes that the endeavour we're talking about is being run as a business. I suspect that if I were to look up "business" in anyone's favourite dictionary, it'd probably have a definition similar to: 'an endeavour or organization pursued for the express purpose of earning a profit'. Are you running USENET news on your site to earn a profit? If so, then you can claim your associated phone bill to be a legit expense. Otherwise I'd be hard pressed to accept your argument. >I'd further >point out that newspapers and TV stations are private businesses in it >for a profit. But when they start dicky-dooing with what gets covered >and who gets broadcast they have to conform to the "rules" set up by the >majority. Newspapers appear to concerned with what produces their revenue: subscribers and advertisers. Again, are you running USENET news as a business on your site? If so, then you must concern yourself with the opinions of your *paying* customers. If not......common sense may be a good simple guide. I'd hope that's what most of us use anyhow. >Obviously any site on USENET can set up any damn policy it >can pay for. But if enough other sites don't like those policies, you >might find yourself an island with a lot of pretty computer hardware >and a lot of modems and nobody to talk to or exchange news with. "Imminent demise of USENET predicted" (death of your business). (you'll have to go back to providing it out of the goodness of your heart - and pocket.) >INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Millions long for immortality who don't Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew # Justice is only relative to what you can afford to prove in court.
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (11/28/89)
[allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) recently posted that: | |Which is perfectly all right when you're in business. Ncoast is not a |business, we do not charge for use (although we request donations), and Rich |Garrett pays a heck of a lot of money monthly with NO return. None. So you |are going to order him to continue doing it, or threaten us with some ill- |defined shunning? B*llsh*t. If the Usenet ever came down to that, ncoast |would most assuredly drop it completely because it's no longer worth the |hassle. But in any case, your "shunning" would have been initiated on *our* |end already, so threatening to cut off what we have already refused is pretty |meaningless. | Well I have no idea what Ncoast is or is not, but if you are in business for profit it is probably a good idea to take into account the will of the majority of your workers when possible. Happy workers are productive workers. Every year there are articles published on the ten best managed places and the ten worst. Mostly the best pay attention to workers. And the cost of a newsfeed is a lot less than a lot of so-called benefits. |All this stuff and nonsense about "the will of the majority" with respect to |propagation of the Usenet is worth exactly ZERO when you don't want to pay the |monthly bills required to be involved with it. You'd do as well to cite the |will of the majority in demanding a free newsfeed from UUNET (and good luck). | The timing of this is perfect! Should I cite the will of the majority demanding a multiple party system in Czechslovakia? The will of those pouring across the Brandenburg gate in Berlin? Don't be so quick to underestimate the power of the "disenfrancised" majority, Brandon! Who's that sneaking up behind you with a knife? :-) :-) |++Brandon |-- - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Nothing is inherently and invincibly young UUCP: buita \ except spirit. And spirit can enter a human talcott } !encore!cook being perhaps better in the quiet of old age bellcore / and dwell there more undisturbed than in the turmoil of adventure." -- George Santayana
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (11/28/89)
[larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) recently posted that: | |2. We utilize minimum resources for non-technical groups; we used to | distribute full feeds for almost 4 years, but the garbage volume | in the soc.*, talk.* and alt.* became excessive and we made some | radical excisions about a year ago. We do not distribute alt.* or | talk.*, distribute only about 30% of rec.*, and distribute only | soc.culture.jewish and soc.women. We distribute soc.culture.jewish | because we feed it to a non-profit organization, and we distribute | soc.women based upon a specific request. | Larry, and others who decide which newsgroups to carry, I would like to urge you to take a look at alt.recovery and consider making an exception for that group. You may have many readers who would benefit who would not necessarily be willing to speak up and request it. And now back to the flamefest! :-) - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "Millions long for immortality who don't UUCP: buita \ know what to do with themselves on a talcott } !encore!cook on a rainy Sunday afternoon." bellcore / - D.P. Barron
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/29/89)
Larry Lippmann asks some questions about SRI. I believe someone else had also earlier asked something about SRI policies. Larry, I'm a lowly plebian here, a mere newsreader, not an SA, as I believe you know. I wouldn't presume to speak to the question of who knows what about what goes on with USENET hereabouts. SRI has more than 2000 employees, and not all of them use a UNIX system. Of those that do, a fair number follow some number of newsgroups. As to the time I spend, I'd like to read news at home, frankly. Anyone know what it takes to hookup to netcom with a MAC SE30, presuming it can be done, tell me please. Valerie Maslak
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/30/89)
As quoted from <10461@encore.Encore.COM> by cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook): +--------------- | [allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) recently posted that: | for profit it is probably a good idea to take into account the will of | the majority of your workers when possible. Happy workers are productive +--------------- Which assumes that the majority of your workers know about the Usenet, much less care. +--------------- | The timing of this is perfect! Should I cite the will of the majority | demanding a multiple party system in Czechslovakia? The will of those +--------------- Which helps not at all when the majority demand something that can't be obtained. Looked at the Soviet Union lately? Its economy is such a basket case that there's no hope of giving the people what they want in any sort of timely manner -- it simply cannot be done. This particular argument of yours smacks of "Bread and Circuses". +--------------- | pouring across the Brandenburg gate in Berlin? Don't be so quick to | underestimate the power of the "disenfrancised" majority, Brandon! Who's +--------------- You're not disenfranchised; "available at a reasonable price" is not equivalent to "not available at all". But you're demanding it gratis. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
justin@inmet.inmet.com (12/01/89)
/* Written 3:09 am Nov 24, 1989 by edhew@xenitec.on.ca in inmet:news.groups */ In article <41800010@inmet> justin@inmet.inmet.com writes: >In other words, I'm not calling an "only-sysadmins-vote" system unfair. I'm >saying that it is totally, utterly, and completely *pointless*... How would my "sysadmin vote" be "pointless" considering that I would have solicited the opinions of my users (being a generous sort of person who values the opinions of the intelligent individuals I allow to have access to my system)? Certainly, in the final analysis, I'm sure that I weigh my opinion more heavily than that of junior users I just created accounts for. Those that participate and contribute currently have respected comments evaluated, as opposed to ignored. I doubt that *my* users would disagree. It is precisely the "interest" factor that I do gauge, within the established hierarchy that we appear to have agreed to. [...] Ed. A. Hew, SCO Authorized Technical Trainer, XeniTec Consulting Services /* End of text from inmet:news.groups */ Given the situation you describe (a sysadmin who really cares about his newsfeed, and really cares about what the users are going to want), then using representation has its merits. Unfortunately, I think that you are in the minority amongst sysadmins. Given the remarkable number of admins who appear to follow Spaf's list, without bothering to think for themselves about what's in it; given the number of systems that say, "Oh, alt is just a gutter, so we won't bother with anything in it," I'm forced to conclude that there are a *lot* of sysadmins out there who simply don't care as much as you do... And even if we did have a perfect world of caring, thoughtful sysadmins, it still misses the point. Say we have two sites, one single-user PC at home and a hundred-user mini at a company. Using the simple-minded representative scheme people have been talking about here, each would be equally represented. Now, that's perfectly *fair* (at least, in some sense), but it means that we are learning little about the actual utility of the group, if a single reader and a hundred possible readers are equally represented. (Devil's Advocate: "It might, however, be sufficient information to determine whether the newsgroup is worthwhile in terms of cost distribution." I confess, I haven't thought the math through carefully enough to give a firm opinion here. If it *did* work, it would be based on very different *sorts* of numbers than we're using today, distribution percentages instead of number of readers...) Also, I suspect that we'd cut our sample population down too far. As is, Usenet "votes" only draw a few hundred people, out of, what?, a hundred thousand? If the vote was restricted to sysadmins only, we'd have a "polled" population so small that the noise in the statistics might well overwhelm any real information we might hope to glean... -- Justin du Coeur "The idea of trial newsgroups looks a little better with each passing week..."