wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (11/10/89)
In article <36339@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >If someone wants a group created, they can have it without a vote *if* the >the NameSpace committee agrees and if it is created with the name given it >by the NameSpace committee. > >If the NameSpace committee turns it down, or if the people who want the >group don't agree with the name, they can put the proposal up for a vote Hey, I like this *a lot* ! I mean, a *whole bunch* ! I'd suggest a 2-week discussion is still in order before appealing to the Namespace Committee, but this is lots of potential, if net.admins are willing to tolerate this level of centralization. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com Free the Lagrange 5 !
mjc@nl.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) (11/11/89)
Chuq proposes a Namespace Committee and emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) asks how this is different from the Backbone Cabal in the "Bad Old Days". First, it's different from the backbone cabal in one important way: there's a way to bypass the decisions of the Namespace Committee. If you don't like what they say, you have a vote the same way you do now. The committee would simply speed up the process for the 90% of the groups that are not controversial, and separate the questions of whether a group should exist (which is what most people care about) from the question of the name (which only a few people care about). Second, what precisely was wrong with those "Bad Old Days"? If the Cabal ever decided to squash a group (having never been a member of said cabal, I can't say with certainty just what happened back then), then the discussions intended for the new group would just happen somewhere else anyway. The cabal seemed to me to be pretty reasonable about groups. Also, back then there was no alt hierarchy; a Cabal is considerably less powerful with the presence of alt.*. The namespace committe -- which is not the cabal -- will not be in any position to squash anything *as a committee*. You're seeing now that *individual admins* might partially squash sci.acquaria, but that has nothing to do with any cabal. Also, the committee that Chuq proposes is not self-appointed; he doesn't elaborate, but mentions election as a possibility. There's also nothing that says it's for life; it's similar to a proposal that Brad made many months ago for a similar committee that changed one member every month (I think). I think it's perfectly reasonable to somehow appoint such a committee with, say, staggered one-year terms. Monica Cellio mjc@cs.cmu.edu
bbc@nysa.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (11/12/89)
In a well-written and timely article, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) dispenses words of wisdom: [deleted for your viewing pleasure...] Amen. What really is wrong with creating many groups? IMHO, it won't increase traffic. Posters will post, regardless of whether the appropriate group exists. I doubt that actually having an appropriate group available will result in more postings overall, or that not having an appropriate group will result in less postings. However, we lack a method for removing and renaming groups, and making group creation easier will make the need greater for these two other things. I challenge the prolific posters of news.groups to solve these problems, rather than spending all your energy and keystrokes flaming at each other. ---------------------------------------- Also, in several weeks, some level-headed, non-partisan soul (if such a person exists) should call for discussion on the creation of: rec.aquaria - for the discussion of the recreational aspects of aquaria If alt.aquaria goes away, then I feel that we will need this group (_in_addition_to_ sci.aquaria!). A significant portion of the traffic in alt.aquaria falls under this topic. I don't want to read about John Berryhill's dying goldfish in sci.aquaria. ---------------------------------------- Thank you for your attention over these past weeks. Retiring to *.aquaria, etc., I remain, -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas (First one up against the wall when the fish police arrived.)
mls@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (mike.siemon) (11/14/89)
In article <BBC.89Nov11230328@nysa.rice.edu>, bbc@nysa.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes: > Amen. What really is wrong with creating many groups? Exponential growth of .newsrc files, that's what. Depending on what reading software is used, this may be invisible and irrelevant to some people on the net. But, as an inveterate browser who constantly scans and diddles with my .newsrc file, I find this has become an annoying problem in the last year. (It is similarly a problem, though less of one, that the name hierarchy is essentially useless in pointing me to groups I'd like to look in on.) Periodic purging of unused groups *might* be an answer, but what is a good cutoff point? less than 2 articles per month for 6 months? That would not matter much if the namespace were sensible enough that a discontinued group could be folded into a higher level -- but if uncontrolled group creation happens, you can be *sure* that there will be problems. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, ...!cucard!dasys1!mls As the tears scald and start; ...!att!sfbat!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/14/89)
According to bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein): >About three years ago I remember asking this group *exactly* what the >reason was that we need to put so much resistance into the group >creation process? Why bother? > >About the closest thing I got to a cogent answer last time was that if >we had a lot of groups it would break some limit on PDP-11's. Apparently Barry forgets all the answers about cluttered name spaces making the discovery of The Appropriate Group For An Article even more difficult. Memory loss can be such a tragedy. >One problem I did see, and also I don't think has ever been rationally >addressed, is that there is no method for REMOVING a group once >properly created (or just consolidating N groups when their individual >reasons for creation, traffic, cease to exist.) This problem does still exist. I think it's about time to try. Rmgroup soc.human-nets, anyone? >There's something so idiotic going on here that it defies explanation, >some kind of cargo-cult or fetish worship with group creation its >dime-store diety. Groupthink at its worst. There is some wisdom here; but multiplying group creations until they become worthless is *not* the answer. -- 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>
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/14/89)
In article <36339@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: | If someone wants a group created, they can have it without a vote *if* the | the NameSpace committee agrees and if it is created with the name given it | by the NameSpace committee. I assume after the call for discussion, or would you just say "that's a good idea" and do it? I like the idea, it would remove all the delays (like sci.physics.fusion) and still allow a way for people to bypass the process. This may be the best idea to come out of the discussion, and would probably have resulted in creation of the aquarium group very quickly, with *whatever* name. -- 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
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (11/14/89)
>In article <36339@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >>If someone wants a group created, they can have it without a vote *if* the >>the NameSpace committee agrees and if it is created with the name given it >>by the NameSpace committee. ------------ Having a committee as the first result has the positive benefit of not allowing a vocal group kill off chances for a new group that would serve a useful purpose. As an example, suppose there were 500 democrats on line, and 550 republicans. Both groups could keep the other from having a group, even though such a group would serve a useful audience. Of course the more unfair case would be if there were only 300 republicans. The democrats could totally dominate the voting, unfairly eliminating the republicans chances for a group -- again, even though a group with 300+ contributors might very well be valid. Perhaps only positive votes should be counted -- if there is enough interest, the create the group, else not. ? -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/14/89)
> Perhaps only positive votes should be counted -- if there is >enough interest, the create the group, else not. The problem I have with this is how you define 'enough' -- sci.aquaria, for instance, had a large number of yes votes. Was it 'enough'? You can really only judge positive interest in comparison to the negative interest. 500 yes votes is definitely 'enough' if you have 10 dissenters. Is it enough if you have 500 or 600 dissenters? No, I still think that a 2/3 majority is the way to go if we're going to vote. I'd like to find some way to circumvent votes for groups where it's clearly a formality or the creation is non-controversial, though. 95% of the time the vote is rubberstamping what is considered a good idea, and it seems overkill to put everything through the wringer just to try to stop the occasional idiot. -- 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.
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (11/14/89)
news.groups's own chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) said:
-
-If someone wants a group created, they can have it without a vote *if* the
-the NameSpace committee agrees and if it is created with the name given it
-by the NameSpace committee.
-
-If the NameSpace committee turns it down, or if the people who want the
-group don't agree with the name, they can put the proposal up for a vote
-under the current guidelines.
-
-The NameSpace committee:
-
-Greg Woods
-Gene Spafford
-Rick Adams (@ uunet)
And they must be doing a good job. After all, we haven't heard about anything
they've been doing.
Keep up the good work folks.
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
The keyboard's been drinking, not me.jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/14/89)
In article <127839@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) writes: > Having a committee as the first result has the positive benefit of > not allowing a vocal group kill off chances for a new group that would > serve a useful purpose. As an example, suppose there were 500 democrats > on line, and 550 republicans. Both groups could keep the other from > having a group, even though such a group would serve a useful > audience. Of course the more unfair case would be if there were only 300 > republicans. The democrats could totally dominate the voting, unfairly > eliminating the republicans chances for a group -- again, even though > a group with 300+ contributors might very well be valid. > Another example of art imitating life: about 1979, I believe, the Georgia Legisature (heavily Democratic ) passed a law regulating which political parties would be allowed on the ballot. The requirements were so Draconian, the Republicans would not have qualified! Of course, in most States, requirements for "third" parties and/or Independents getting on the ballot are so outrageous as to keep most of them off. It's startling to see elections in Poland and Hungary with more parties allowed to participate than in some States of our own Union. But back to group creation: if we can hold a vote on the hierarchy or name at the same time as we vote on whether to create the group, there's no reason to retard group creation. Jeff Daiell Legalize tax evasion. -- "'Tis not too late to seek a newer world." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (11/15/89)
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) writes: >In article <36339@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >>If someone wants a group created, they can have it without a vote *if* the >>the NameSpace committee agrees and if it is created with the name given it >>by the NameSpace committee. This looks much more like government by representation than it looks like anarchy to me. I want to be in on things from the ground up, rather than having someone else decide for me. There have been many complaints that Richard took away people's power to help choose the name for sci.aquaria. While this is different, it is also the same. One thing that I appreciate about the current system is that I get to put my fingers directly into the pie. I won't easily give that up. And, if we're to have government by representation, do I get to vote on my representative? Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Robert Frost
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/15/89)
In article <36442@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> Perhaps only positive votes should be counted -- if there is >>enough interest, the create the group, else not. > >The problem I have with this is how you define 'enough' -- sci.aquaria, for >instance, had a large number of yes votes. Was it 'enough'? You can really >only judge positive interest in comparison to the negative interest. 500 yes >votes is definitely 'enough' if you have 10 dissenters. Is it enough if you >have 500 or 600 dissenters? > >No, I still think that a 2/3 majority is the way to go if we're going to >vote. I'd like to find some way to circumvent votes for groups where it's >clearly a formality or the creation is non-controversial, though. 95% of the >time the vote is rubberstamping what is considered a good idea, and it seems >overkill to put everything through the wringer just to try to stop the >occasional idiot. >Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA Is the value derived from a newgroup by the 500-yes versus 10-no that much more important than the value derived by, say 500-yes versus 401-no. Why should your strong negative feelings about a newsgroup prevent me from benefitting from it? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what happened with all of this fish crap. But, if we are gonna change the voting system for newsgroup creation, let's do it right. Let's give each site one vote and let the sys admin or designate cast that vote. Simple majority rules. It is the systems administrators, acting on behalf of the machine owners, who have the responsibility for keeping the Usenet running and bear the cost of doing so. They should have the responsibility and authority to determine how it runs. The Usenet isn't democracy and it isn't anarchy. It is a fuedal system where the cost of a fief is the cost of setting up and running a site. /craig Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org 2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 fax
cmf@obie.cis.pitt.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser) (11/15/89)
In article <36343@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >o I'm not on the committee. (I, for one, am happy with that) >o The charter of the NSC is to create groups unless there is an overriding > reason not to, rather than inhibit newsgroup creation unless there is a > reason to. So the default is, essentially, "Yes" instead of "No". >o There's an appeal process. You don't like the answer you got from the > NSC, you can appeal it to the net. So long as the "NameSpace Committee" refrains from politicking during the vote. This means no more "I urge you to vote no", or even "we don't think this is a good idea". The fact that it didn't pass Committee scrutiny should be enough message to the voters as to their feelings. >At least two of those differences are non-trivial in my eyes. Indeed. Properly executed, this could be as harmonious as we've ever had it. Carl Fongheiser cmf@unix.cis.pitt.edu
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/15/89)
What's wrong with creating lots of groups? An ancient debate. Let me present how it's done on some other nets, such as GEnie and CIS. Only the execs can create a new master group (forum or round table as they call it.) They then appoint somebody to look after that area, called a SYSOP. The SYSOP can create subgroups within the master area as desired. They are usually called categories. Within the categories, *anybody* can open a topic. A "topic" as it's called on GEnie, for example, is halfway between a newsgroup and a USENET thread. It's partly in the structure and a little bit due to the reader software. You can read a topic on its own. Like a notesfile, the articles are grouped together. If you followup, you do it within a topic. You can unsubscribe to a topic. Topics stay around for quite a while, usually until the SYSOP decides they are long dead and cleans them up. SYSOPS don't moderate like USENET moderators, but they do have the ability to change topics after the fact, editing their subject or moving them to another category. Usenet threads are close to topics, but the ability to read in sequence and unsubscribe is only roughly implemented in *some* of the net reading software, not at all in the posting software. ------- That's the description. I think there is something to be learned from this model: A) Master groups that are hard to create, and are consistently named. B) Sub-level groups that can be created easily, either by a 'category moderator' for each master group, or some quick and simple process. C) Topics (threads) that are a little more entrenched in the software, that anybody can create. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/16/89)
From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) >Apparently Barry forgets all the answers about cluttered name spaces making >the discovery of The Appropriate Group For An Article even more difficult. > >Memory loss can be such a tragedy. Apparently Chip hasn't looked at his active file or .newsrc in a few years, I have 976 groups listed. I fear the horse has long since left the barn. If you think you're solving the problem of discovering the appropriate group by trying to keep it down to around 1000 I think you're deluded. Do you buy the smallest theasurus or dictionary you can find on the assumption that it will be easier to find words in it? An entirely different mechanism is needed to help people find what they're looking for, the days of a manageable list of groups has long since past and adding another coupla hundred this year (or not) won't make one whit of difference to the problem you describe. Working from polemics rather than facts is also a tragedy. >There is some wisdom here; but multiplying group creations until they become >worthless is *not* the answer. That's a bit of hyperbole. The Library of Congress probably has hundreds of thousands of subject classifications and I haven't heard anyone calling the nation's library systems useless. And until very recently people didn't even have computers to find the subjects they wanted, they did it with little cards in little drawers. Computers actually seem to have knocked most catalogue systems down to simplicity. Just saying nice truisms like "umm, if there were too many then, er, it would be CONFUSING" doesn't prove the point, it's just preaching to a choir. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/16/89)
>Is the value derived from a newgroup by the 500-yes versus 10-no that >much more important than the value derived by, say 500-yes versus 401-no. >Why should your strong negative feelings about a newsgroup prevent me >from benefitting from it? *My* strong negative feelings mean nothing. But a general strong negative feeling from the network is a warning flag that something's wrong. There are two things that I feel should be necessary for group creation: o a general interest in the group. This is shown by having a specific minimum number of votes (currently 100). A vote that wins 10-0 doesn't give a group a mandate. Even though it's unanimous, what it really shows is nobody on either side really cares. o That the general consensus of the net on the group is positive. Look at sci.aquaria. It's YES vote was, I believe, the largest ever. But that doesn't mean that it's the right group. The NO vote was also the largest ever. The NO votes are there as a moderating influence; if enough people (with enough to be defined) think there's a problem with the proposal, then the proposal should be tabled until the problems are resolved or some kind of agreement is reached. If you just count yes votes, there's no way to get any kind of perspective on what the yes votes mean -- they're votes in a vacuum. >But, if we are gonna change the voting system for >newsgroup creation, let's do it right. Let's give each site one vote >and let the sys admin or designate cast that vote. No, I don't agree. Most sysadmins are too busy to spend all their time playing secretary for their users on every newgroup proposal. The effective result of this would be to disenfranchise everyone except on sites where the admin is a USENET hacker or is personally interested in the group. Maybe the best bet is to use the Australian Prefernce system: rec.pets.aquaria rec.aquaria none sci.aquaria and whatever name gets the consensus preference is created. If no award wins, we don't create it. -- 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.
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (11/16/89)
In article <36505@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >>Is the value derived from a newgroup by the 500-yes versus 10-no that >>much more important than the value derived by, say 500-yes versus 401-no. >>Why should your strong negative feelings about a newsgroup prevent me >>from benefitting from it? > >*My* strong negative feelings mean nothing. But a general strong negative >feeling from the network is a warning flag that something's wrong. ------------- Why is it that something is wrong? To use a variant on a previous example. If we have 100 <insert unpopular minority (UM)>, and 1000 mainstream WASPS, if the 100 want to form a newsgroup, then the 1000 can probably pretty easily block that simply because they don't like the UM. Is that fair to the UM? Is that right? Unless all of the negative voters are voting for something other than prejudicial, or personal dislikes, a no vote, IMHO, would not be right or fair. -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/16/89)
Look folks, the solution to the complicated name space problem is
pretty trivial. And it ain't "let's try and require 1,000 flame posts
before we create a group."
The current group names, like sci.aquaria (ahem) are nothing but a
catalog entry, not unlike QA101.75V2 you might find on a library book
(and could be better structured, but that's not what I want to say
here.) All it really needs is more descriptive info.
Why not something like a termcap file for groups?
Two types of keywords will be mandatory and unique, the newsgroup name
(sci.aquaria) and a longer, natural language oriented entry ("Aquarium
Science".) To that you can add properties and other non-unique
keywords so people can enter a query (fish?) and get back all the
groups which match, and choose one (Matches: sci.aquaria,
rec.food.cooking.sushi, choice?) It's up to the user interface whether
that affects the newsrc file or not, etc etc etc.
Let's call this file the newsgroupcap file and set it up like this:
sci.aquaria|Aquarium Science|\
:mod:kw=fish,aquariums,gravel,guppies:\
:exp#14:dist=sci:\
:desc="A moderated group for the discussion of aquarium science":\
:mail=richard@gryphon.com:
Key:
mod boolean, group is moderated
kw list of keywords
exp expiration interval in days
dist default distribution of postings
desc short description of group
mail mail address of moderator
...etc...
Most of these entries can be standardized and distributed just like
everything else. Now we can write a little set of routines to query
the file just like the termcap routines. Heck, it even works with YP
software, you can distribute it on your LAN trivially. User interfaces
can compile it into more convenient indices (eg. by keyword.)
Just like our experience with termcap (and terminfo), several dozen
different little flags and variables can be added with no great
confusion. It's hard to believe that this should get out of hand so
let's drop that conversation.
Less popular user interfaces can have their own flags added if they
like since unrecognized flags are ignored anyhow by other interfaces.
These may or may not be distributed as standard, that's a different
issue, who cares really (given a set of "standard" flags most of you
could generate the simple shell script to remove all the non-standard
ones or insert new ones, really not a major concern.) Local settings
(like expiration) can be managed locally (perhaps some convention is
needed to mark the beginning of local flags so it's easy to recollate
with updates) and files like explist can be regenerated from this
master file, automatically. Same for the sys file etc.
Now the user interface freaks can design to their hearts content and
we can probably surivive about 100,000 groups before the system breaks
down and has to be rethought out again.
Done.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzsmesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (11/16/89)
williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >In article <36505@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>a general strong negative >>feeling from the network is a warning flag that something's wrong. >------------- > >To use a variant on a previous >example. If we have 100 <insert unpopular minority (UM)>, and 1000 >mainstream WASPS, if the 100 want to form a newsgroup, then the 1000 >can probably pretty easily block that simply because they don't like >the UM. Is that fair to the UM? Is that right? But the net has not, historically, operated that way. When _a_lot_ of NO votes have come in, it's almost always been attributable to concern over a particular aspect of the proposal as opposed to a prejudicial attitude towards the groups proponents. We must protect minority's interest from the tyranny of the majority. But be mindful that any yahoo can garner n hundred YES votes given sufficient motiviation. -- void *Wayne_Mesard(); Mesard@BBN.COM BBN, Cambridge, MA
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov15.231248.11580@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > > Why not something like a termcap file for groups? I think that's an excellent idea, but it doesn't solve all our problems. For example, take the sci.aquaria debate. (Oh no, not *that*.) How will the newsgroupcap alleviate the "right group, wrong hierarchy" problem? Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/16/89)
According to bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein): >From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) >>Apparently Barry forgets all the answers about cluttered name spaces making >>the discovery of The Appropriate Group For An Article even more difficult. > >Apparently Chip hasn't looked at his active file or .newsrc in a few >years, I have 976 groups listed. I fear the horse has long since left >the barn. I disagree; but then, that's what polite discourse is all about. >Do you buy the smallest theasurus or dictionary you can find on the >assumption that it will be easier to find words in it? Oh, please. That's probably the least appropriate analogy I could expect. My personal dictionary does not provide categories for discussion. >Just saying nice truisms like "umm, if there were too many then, er, >it would be CONFUSING" doesn't prove the point, it's just preaching to >a choir. If there were too many groups created by a variety of people, each of whom has a unique idea of how the namespace should be used, and without any restraint from popular opinion, the result would be a _very_ confusing mess. As opposed to the moderately confusing mess we have now. -- 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?"
justin@inmet.inmet.com (11/17/89)
Re: Brad's idea about "levels" of groups Hear, hear! I've been muddling around with this idea for the better part of a year now, never quite getting up the guts to actually post it (largely because it would require some changes to the software to work well, and I'm pretty cynical about the chances of that happening). But my ideas jibe almost exactly with Brad's. A possible structure: Hierarchies "Top-level" groups, created by some sort of Net consensus "Subgroups", creatable more easily. (By any sysadmin? I'd like to believe that most sysadmins understand what they're doing well enough that they wouldn't do anything stupid, but experience tells me that that may not be the case). "Topics", startable by any user "Subtopics", any number of levels, startable by any user One should have the ability to kill any topic easily (not hard to implement), as well as the capability of subscribing *only* to a topic without subscribing to the entire group. (Note that this could eliminate the need for cross-posting as it now exists. Instead of x-posting the whole thread, one would just x-post a message saying, "this discussion is starting up in this newsgroup, under this topic", with some sort of hook that would allow users to easily join the topic.) All of this would apply equally to sub-topics, so that a reader could kill a tangent thread easily. Sigh; the last time I started in on this idea, I got 15 pages into it, before giving up, saying, "Nahh, it'll never happen". What do people think? Is it worth pursuing ideas of how to make a better Net structure, or is it just an exercize in futility? Should I pull out all of those old notes, or just let them moulder in peace? -- Justin du Coeur
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/17/89)
>I think that's an excellent idea, but it doesn't solve all our >problems. > >For example, take the sci.aquaria debate. (Oh no, not *that*.) How >will the newsgroupcap alleviate the "right group, wrong hierarchy" >problem? Indeed, and how will it contribute to world peace in our lifetime? I don't think anyone suggested that it would solve the sci.aquaria debate beyond, perhaps, making the whole group namespace more logical and supportive of user interface development that perhaps we don't have to fight like cats and fish over every group creation proposal. It reduces the threshold. Hell, how about: sci.aquaria|Aquarium Science:\ :tc=rec.aquaria: Anyone who understands termcap is now chuckling. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/17/89)
In article <1989Nov15.160912.8148@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > The Library of Congress probably has > hundreds of thousands of subject classifications and I haven't heard > anyone calling the nation's library systems useless. Because most books are put into the right sections. In other words, the official subject divisions are easy to understand and widely respected. USENET groups don't work that way. ---Dan
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (11/17/89)
news.groups's own craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) said:
-
-Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what happened with all of this
-fish crap. But, if we are gonna change the voting system for
-newsgroup creation, let's do it right. Let's give each site one vote
-and let the sys admin or designate cast that vote. Simple majority
-rules. It is the systems administrators, acting on behalf of the
-machine owners, who have the responsibility for keeping the Usenet
-running and bear the cost of doing so. They should have the responsibility
-and authority to determine how it runs.
Ok...some of these points have been brought up before, but they bear repeating:
1) What is a site? We've got people reading news on over 100 machines here
at SCO. Does the admin for each machine get to vote? Or just the "admin"
for the uucp hub?
2) What is a sys admin or designate? Is it the person listed in the UUCP map
entry? Is the person who's making news work on the system? Is it anyone
with a root password?
3) What about my machine at home? I get news there...I'm the only one who
reads it, but, as you say, it's the sysadmins who should "determine how it
runs". And frankly, I've got so little disk space, I don't think anymore
newsgroups should be created. Ever. And let's start removing newsgroups
too...who really needs comp.sys.<not-my-system>.
3.5) What about a machine at home. Should a site that only gets a small
feed have the same rights as, say, uunet? Yes? Weird.
4) What about (dare I ask) forgeries? With one vote representing (perhaps
falsely) the will of 1-1000 people, this could start to make a large
difference.
5) And what about all the non-admins who make a difference. Voting may just
be an illusion of democracy, but I (for one) want that illusion maintained.
And so do a number of other people.
6) Suppose there's no worry about 1, 2, 4 or 5. Some company has 1
machine, no NNTP, and only 1 person with root access. No suppose that
person just has no time to read anything other than a few newsgroups
(as in reads news.announce.newgroups, but not news.groups). Can they
make an informed vote about sci.sushi.farming? Or about comp.oops?
But they may wind up voting anyway. Uninformed voting is bad for the
net.
There is no fair way to run anything that consists of differently sized
and priced units. This system is far from the best, but it's important
to note that the siteadmin has ultimate veto power at their site, simply
by not carrying (and fascisticly) not passing the group.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
" -- they're normal. terrifyingly, appallingly normal -- like they've gone
through normal and come out the other side." - neil gaiman in _Sandman_ #11bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/17/89)
From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) >If there were too many groups created by a variety of people, each of whom >has a unique idea of how the namespace should be used, and without any >restraint from popular opinion, the result would be a _very_ confusing mess. >As opposed to the moderately confusing mess we have now. Well, anyhow, as has been adequately pointed out, the namespace problem and the group creation problem are ultimately independent. Of course, by creating no or very few newsgroups you avoid (i.e. beg) the issue of fixing the namespace. If you have no groups (or as few as possible) then you never have to fix how they are named, but a lot of this discussion was prompted by the attempt to create *ONE* group. Talk about a house of cards. By separating the two problems and improving how we approach each we might be able to fix things. If we keep insisting on confusing the two issues I doubt we'll get anywhere. Kinda like some fairy tale with a moral lesson, a town forbidding people to have more children because all the "proper" names have been taken and it's too confusing to have any more Johns and Marys. I think the USENET is now more or less in this state, the crazy and painful voting rules no longer seem to be motivated by a sincere desire to get quality groups, it's motivated (at least in some) by trying to protect a collapsing namespace from further collapse. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/18/89)
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) >> The Library of Congress probably has >> hundreds of thousands of subject classifications and I haven't heard >> anyone calling the nation's library systems useless. > >Because most books are put into the right sections. In other words, the >official subject divisions are easy to understand and widely respected. >USENET groups don't work that way. I bet you'd never get a librarian to agree to that statement. It's all ultimately a fuzzy, humanist endeavor. Which is fine. Cataloguing is a very difficult specialty, and worse, where something seems to fit changes over time (not that it gets changed, but it can seem very out of place twenty years later, where would you go to find early books on cognitive modelling? Psychology? Neurobiology? Math? Physiology? Philosophy? Computer Science????) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/18/89)
In article <395@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: > >news.groups's own craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) said: >- >-Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what happened with all of this >-fish crap. But, if we are gonna change the voting system for >-newsgroup creation, let's do it right. Let's give each site one vote >-and let the sys admin or designate cast that vote. Simple majority >-rules. It is the systems administrators, acting on behalf of the >-machine owners, who have the responsibility for keeping the Usenet >-running and bear the cost of doing so. They should have the responsibility >-and authority to determine how it runs. > >Ok...some of these points have been brought up before, but they bear repeating: > >1) What is a site? We've got people reading news on over 100 machines here >at SCO. Does the admin for each machine get to vote? Or just the "admin" >for the uucp hub? > If it handles news and is registered, it would appear to be a site. >2) What is a sys admin or designate? Is it the person listed in the UUCP map >entry? Is the person who's making news work on the system? Is it anyone >with a root password? > That really can worked out at the site. As long as only one person from a registered site attempts to vote. All of the other squabbling can be handled internally, where it belongs. Multiple votes from one site could cause revocation of voting privileges. >3) What about my machine at home? I get news there...I'm the only one who >reads it, but, as you say, it's the sysadmins who should "determine how it >runs". And frankly, I've got so little disk space, I don't think anymore >newsgroups should be created. Ever. And let's start removing newsgroups >too...who really needs comp.sys.<not-my-system>. > See Number 1 above. >3.5) What about a machine at home. Should a site that only gets a small >feed have the same rights as, say, uunet? Yes? Weird. > I knew that this argument would rear its head. But, yes, I am saying that each registered site gets one vote. Backbone or leaf site, doesn't matter. This is no stranger than giving a vote to every reader when surely some do far more to keep the news flowing than others. Is the system I propose any weirder than the current one? I don't think so. I personally feel that every non-leaf site should be required to carry a full feed if they carry news. That would reduce the problems related to one hiearchy getting better distribution than another. >4) What about (dare I ask) forgeries? With one vote representing (perhaps >falsely) the will of 1-1000 people, this could start to make a large >difference. > Actually, I believe that forgeries and fake votes would be more difficult given the proposed system. See Number 2 above. If multiple votes come in from one site and the real vote cannot be determined, disregard all votes from that site. The system administrator would have the responsibility of determining the source of the counterfeit votes. And it would behoove the other administrators to assist in the search. >5) And what about all the non-admins who make a difference. Voting may just >be an illusion of democracy, but I (for one) want that illusion maintained. >And so do a number of other people. > I didn't say that there wouldn't be discussion by everyone. And actually, the proposed system, known as representational democracy, would be closer to what we have in most of the "democractic" countries. Do you vote on most laws or regulations that affect you? No, you elect representatives to do that for you. Do you vote for the President of the United States? No! Your voting decides which Presidential Elector from your state gets to vote in the Electoral College and what your preference is w.r.t. that person's vote. The elector can vote for whoever when the time comes. So much for "democracy". >6) Suppose there's no worry about 1, 2, 4 or 5. Some company has 1 >machine, no NNTP, and only 1 person with root access. No suppose that >person just has no time to read anything other than a few newsgroups >(as in reads news.announce.newgroups, but not news.groups). Can they >make an informed vote about sci.sushi.farming? Or about comp.oops? >But they may wind up voting anyway. Uninformed voting is bad for the >net. Sounds a lot like the current system, except that the odds are that a greater percentage of the current system's voters will be uninformed than in the proposed system. I am sure that many of the aquaria voters were not cognizant of the ramifications of their vote. They just wanted an aquaria group. I am presuming that if the system administrator does not have the time or inclination to perform the task of voting, that system administrator will designate someone who is willing and able to perform it. > >There is no fair way to run anything that consists of differently sized >and priced units. This system is far from the best, but it's important >to note that the siteadmin has ultimate veto power at their site, simply >by not carrying (and fascisticly) not passing the group. The people who have responsibility for paying the bills have the ultimate veto power. They should be the ones who determine how their resources are used. If you don't like how you are being treated at a site, buy a machine. Get registered and vote. Once you start paying for computer resources, modems, phone lines, etc., you will be more concerned about how those resources are being used. >-- > David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. /craig Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org 2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 fax
sean@dranet.dra.com (11/18/89)
In article <3969@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > In article <1989Nov15.160912.8148@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >> The Library of Congress probably has >> hundreds of thousands of subject classifications and I haven't heard >> anyone calling the nation's library systems useless. > > Because most books are put into the right sections. In other words, the > official subject divisions are easy to understand and widely respected. > USENET groups don't work that way. There are hundreds classification schemes in common use. They have a big advantage over USENET naming. The other classification schemes are generally applied AFTER the book (film, map, etc.) is written. And then an "independent" cataloger can examine the material and classify it. Authors and publishers may be very good at what they do, but they often have their own agendas. But then again perhaps sci.acquaria will turn out to be the most scientific of all the newsgroups (though there were many other issues tied up in that one). But most classification schemes share a common trait with USENET naming, namely that somebody always thinks it is wrong. For example, the LC subject headings are often viewed as being obscure, and difficult to use so Hennapin Library has come up with their own "clearer," "easier to use" subject headings. Of course an individual USENET site could hack their software to display whatever name they want to their users, so what is the issue about the name. The issue, which other classification systems will be sharing with USENET soon, is that the "selective dissemination of information" will become more tied to the classification system. SDI is the library equivalent of USENET's distribution mechanism. When more information is distributed by classification, then I think that more disagreements over classification will occur. So I don't really think that LC, or Dewey, or anyone else has really solved these problems either (they may not have them yet, but they haven't solved them yet either). I don't know that separating the distribution from the classification would really help this problem (though on general principles I like it). The flamefests, and attempts to change the distribution to tunnel through "recalcitrant, narrow-minded" choke points in the USENET distribution will continue (although all main hierarchies seem to get a very good worldwide distribution regardless). They will flame, talk, post, discuss, etc wherever they believe that people with those interests read. The hierarchy the group is in doesn't really make a difference to the quality of the participants, unless you restrict the distribution to only "high quality" people. But that's what mailing lists are for... (:-?) -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@dranet.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 Affiliation given for purposes of identification, not representation
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) (11/18/89)
news.groups's own craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) said: Craig> [the "sysadmins only" voting system] In article <395@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: David> Ok...some of these points have been brought up before, but they bear David> repeating: David> 1) What is a site? We've got people reading news on over 100 David> machines here at SCO. Does the admin for each machine get to vote? David> Or just the "admin" for the uucp hub? >>>>> On 17 Nov 89 20:52:00 GMT, craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. >>>>> Wilson) said: Craig> If it handles news and is registered, it would appear to be a site. Okay, fine. I'd better go register the workstations. David> 2) What is a sys admin or designate? Is it the person listed in the David> UUCP map entry? Is the person who's making news work on the system? David> Is it anyone with a root password? Craig> That really can worked out at the site. As long as only one person Craig> from a registered site attempts to vote. All of the other squabbling Craig> can be handled internally, where it belongs. Multiple votes from one Craig> site could cause revocation of voting privileges. I love it! I can cancel out *all* of BU's voting capability in one stroke! (Well, two. I think bu.edu has its own map entry now.) For that matter, with a little work I could cancel out all of Ohio State's voting capability! Yum! This is even better than I thought. David> 3) What about my machine at home? I get news there...I'm the only David> one who reads it, but, as you say, it's the sysadmins who should David> "determine how it runs". And frankly, I've got so little disk David> space, I don't think anymore newsgroups should be created. Ever. David> And let's start removing newsgroups too...who really needs David> comp.sys.<not-my-system>. Craig> See Number 1 above. Time to register those workstations, again. Oh, and my Mac. And my friend's Mac. And a few of the ones down at the computer store. David> 3.5) What about a machine at home. Should a site that only gets a David> small feed have the same rights as, say, uunet? Yes? Weird. Craig> I knew that this argument would rear its head. But, yes, I am saying Craig> that each registered site gets one vote. Backbone or leaf site, Craig> doesn't matter. This is no stranger than giving a vote to every Craig> reader when surely some do far more to keep the news flowing than Craig> others. Is the system I propose any weirder than the current one? I Craig> don't think so. I do. And remember, by lowering the number of votes, you increase the power of each one, making it that much more useful to sway (or forge!) a small number of 'em. Heck, if I really want to pass sci.puns, I'll just go through the maps, find some sites that aren't likely to bother voting, and whip myself up a majority. Craig> I personally feel that every non-leaf site should be required to Craig> carry a full feed if they carry news. That would reduce the Craig> problems related to one hiearchy getting better distribution than Craig> another. It would also cause a hell of a lot of systems to drop off the net, I'd suspect. This is rather socialist equalization--and tough to enforce, unless you and the net.cops.with.guns.and.big.dogs are going to go check everyone's active files. David> 4) What about (dare I ask) forgeries? With one vote representing David> (perhaps falsely) the will of 1-1000 people, this could start to David> make a large difference. Craig> Actually, I believe that forgeries and fake votes would be more Craig> difficult given the proposed system. See Number 2 above. If multiple Craig> votes come in from one site and the real vote cannot be determined, Craig> disregard all votes from that site. The system administrator would Craig> have the responsibility of determining the source of the counterfeit Craig> votes. And it would behoove the other administrators to assist in the Craig> search. This is lovely. I don't need to forge votes going my way, I just need to forge a vote and it *cancels* the original voter's vote, lowering the total number of votes cast. So if there are 100 admins voting, and I forge 20 admin votes (and 20 more from admins who don't bother to vote), it's still 100 votes total, but I've cancelled 20 opposing voters *and added 20 in my favor*. David> 5) And what about all the non-admins who make a difference. Voting David> may just be an illusion of democracy, but I (for one) want that David> illusion maintained. And so do a number of other people. Craig> I didn't say that there wouldn't be discussion by everyone. And Craig> actually, the proposed system, known as representational democracy, Craig> would be closer to what we have in most of the "democractic" Craig> countries. Do you vote on most laws or regulations that affect you? Craig> No, you elect representatives to do that for you. Do you vote for the Craig> President of the United States? No! Your voting decides which Craig> Presidential Elector from your state gets to vote in the Electoral Craig> College and what your preference is w.r.t. that person's vote. The Craig> elector can vote for whoever when the time comes. So much for Craig> "democracy". Yup. That's why some people want to change it. USENET should, IMHO, be a forward-looking group of folks--not looking to old, outdated, vestigial parts of our governmental "system" (HA!) for leadership. Craig> [...] I am presuming that if the system administrator does not have Craig> the time or inclination to perform the task of voting, that system Craig> administrator will designate someone who is willing and able to Craig> perform it. (strangled noises) Yeah, right. David> There is no fair way to run anything that consists of differently sized David> and priced units. This system is far from the best, but it's important David> to note that the siteadmin has ultimate veto power at their site, simply David> by not carrying (and fascisticly) not passing the group. Craig> The people who have responsibility for paying the bills have the Craig> ultimate veto power. They should be the ones who determine how their Craig> resources are used. If you don't like how you are being treated at a Craig> site, buy a machine. Get registered and vote. Once you start paying Craig> for computer resources, modems, phone lines, etc., you will be more Craig> concerned about how those resources are being used. That's what he just said! They have that power *now*! Why do we need to give them both voting power *and* the veto? To use your civics-class example of the US Government, you've just given the Congress collective power to do anything by a simple majority. No checks or balances, except adding yourself to Congress. [Oh, except that *this* Congress is unelected.] -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/19/89)
In article <1989Nov14.181626.17044@everexn.uucp> you write: > >One thing that I appreciate about the current system is that I get to >put my fingers directly into the pie. I won't easily give that up. > >And, if we're to have government by representation, do I get to vote >on my representative? > >Karen Any time you're directly paying for his/her salary and resources, I would have to agree with this. You appear to be alluding to our current socio/political/economic system. If you pay the shot, you get to call the shot. Sounds fair to me. >Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA > ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen 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.
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (11/21/89)
news.groups's own craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) said: Craig> I knew that this argument would rear its head. But, yes, I am saying Craig> that each registered site gets one vote. -------------- Sorry, but I strongly disagree. One person. One vote. You have some sites with 10000 people and some with 1. To equate the will of those 10000 people (each of whom may have a separate system (workstation) with the will of 1 is unfair and very unrepresentative of the will of the people. -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/21/89)
I had written: >Craig> I knew that this argument would rear its head. But, yes, I am saying >Craig> that each registered site gets one vote. >-------------- To which Mr. Turnbow replied: > Sorry, but I strongly disagree. One person. One vote. You have >some sites with 10000 people and some with 1. To equate the will of >those 10000 people (each of whom may have a separate system (workstation) >with the will of 1 is unfair and very unrepresentative of the will of >the people. >-wat- To which I respond with: The proposal may be called many things, but "unrepresentative" is not one of them. There would be representation. You just have concerns about the type and fairness of that representation. I think that this system would push those arguments and squabbles back to the sites, where they could be worked out internally. And if someone doesn't like the way they are representated, they can establish their own site and become the "official" representative. Or they can find a site that is more in tune with their positions on net issues. As to whether "one site, one vote" is unfair? Well, is the Senate of the United States unfair? /craig Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org 2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 fax
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (11/23/89)
In article <3059@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >As to whether "one site, one vote" is unfair? Well, is the Senate of >the United States unfair? Actually, YES! This is why we have the House of Represenatives and vice-versa. 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
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (11/23/89)
In article <3059@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >As to whether "one site, one vote" is unfair? Well, is the Senate of >the United States unfair? --------- You forget -- there is also a House of Representatives that must pass everything the Senate passes before it becomes law. Also, how does one define a site? An individual machine? A geographical site? A company or university? Etc... -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/24/89)
In article <128132@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >news.groups's own craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) said: >Craig> I knew that this argument would rear its head. But, yes, I am saying >Craig> that each registered site gets one vote. >-------------- > Sorry, but I strongly disagree. One person. One vote. You have >some sites with 10000 people and some with 1. To equate the will of >those 10000 people (each of whom may have a separate system (workstation) >with the will of 1 is unfair and very unrepresentative of the will of >the people. Hmmmmm. This is interesting. In Canada we have electoral divisions called "ridings" (this seems to mean that the politicials get to ride the backs of the voters, but that's probably not the original intended definition). Some ridings may have as few as say 30,000 people, some may have over 100,000 or more (we're talking provincial here, federal is of course much larger). While my numbers may not be totally accurate, the principal currently in use certainly suggests that some riding voters have triple or more the clout of people who may merely live on the other side of some road. Generally rural votes matter 3 or 4 times as much as city votes individually. I will leave it to the reader to determine if this is an equitable non-"unrepresentative" way of determining the "will of the people". Perhaps in the US all your electoral districts (or whatever you call them) have *exactly* the same number of registered (or better yet, actual) voters? If you can honestly say "yes" to that question, then you may have a basis for your argument. >-wat- 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.
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/24/89)
In article tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes: >In article craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: > >>As to whether "one site, one vote" is unfair? Well, is the Senate of >>the United States unfair? > >Actually, YES! This is why we have the House of Represenatives and >vice-versa. >Terry Right! Now, as your reply points out, the House of Representatives has it's problems, also. That is why we have a bicameral legislature in the U.S. A similar arrangement exists in England with the House of Commons and the House of Lords. So, if you want to talk "democracy" and "representation" and use any of the major countries as an example, you'll agree that there should be a body on the Usenet providing an equal say to each registered site. And this body should be able to determine whether anything voted upon and passed by the "popular house" gets implemented. And this body should be able to pass and propose changes to the working of the Usenet according to their own rules. This body already exists. Albeit in an unorganized fashion. I am proposing that the body take more shape and more authority in the running of the Usenet. And then I am proposing that the "popular house" be reduced to advisory only w.r.t. the running of the Usenet. /craig Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org 2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 fax
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (11/26/89)
>In article <3083@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >In article tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes: >>In article craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >>>As to whether "one site, one vote" is unfair? Well, is the Senate of >>>the United States unfair? >>Actually, YES! This is why we have the House of Represenatives and >>vice-versa. >Right! Now, as your reply points out, the House of >Representatives has it's problems, also. I was pointing out that the US has The House and the Senate in order to "play" both sides of the argument: Population vs Territory. We have the same situation on USENET. However, I don't believe that more "rules" or "guidelines" will help, since if it becomes unreasonable to create newsgroups, people will simply look elsewhere. It comes as no suprise to me that we're seeing the creation of new NETs. If I wanted to do some serious traffic passing, going to USENET to beg permission and name selection would be low on my list. If I knew of sites interested in the traffic (and we had direct connections via phone line or internet) why bother with USENET? Now that the internet is spreading throughout the nation, this option looks far better. The splintering of the "net" is at hand. 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