brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/12/89)
How to rename a trial group into mainstream USENET? I would be surprised if, in 99% of all cases, an independent experienced netter couldn't come up with a good descriptive name for the move. In the remaining 1% (or more, if you think so) let them hash it out *in* the trial group, without annoying the rest of the net. Have a vote if you must, or have somebody in the trial group who really opposes the independent suggestion have a run-off vote between the independent suggestion an an alternate. (Announce once in news.announce.newgroups or similar group) But in most cases let's not pick the name by committee. A naming scheme must be understandable, but most importantly, it must be *consistent*. Names chosen in a series of votes or through 'net concenus' (whatever that is) will not be consistent. If it's not consistent, it doesn't serve the purpose for which it is intended. Sadly, the case for the illusion of democracy is also strong, which is why we have what we have now -- but it reduces the utility of the naming scheme. I would be willing to say *all* names be chosen by a disinterested experienced netter, but other people seem to resist that. They resist it for a valid reason -- it's difficult to feel you can trust one person. But I do know (and recent events prove it) that we can't trust the committee of 500. We can be sure that they will be inconsistent. A tougher problem is now to deal with rec.sex. That group was passed and not created, due to 'the cabal.' What would we do today if such a group were proposed? I can't imagine a single democracy-like test (including my readership level test) that wouldn't be passed by rec.sex. In the end, it would just come down to scared sysadmins not forwarding the group as they wish, I guess. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/13/89)
In article <45326@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Some have challenged me to meet my own test of a simple effective >creation scheme that can be clearly explained in 25 lines. Here is one. >(It contains elements of past proposals by others and myself) > ------------------------------------- >New hierarchy: "trial." Any serious(*) group can be created there, name >chosen by any experienced netter. (It's not the final name) Is "trial" going to get worldwide distribution or will many sites limit it because it may carry non-productive proto-newsgroups at some point. Other than starting with a clean slate, how would "trial" differ from "alt"? > >If, at the end of 5-6 months, the group has at least 1 reader for every >two machines that carry it, it is moved into the main hierarchies. If it >does not, it is rmgrouped. High readership allows transfer in < 5 months. > Please clarify "high readership". And, how about allowing for topical, relatively short-lived groups to extend beyond the 6 months? That way they wouldn't have to get promoted, only to go dormant a few months later. Also, will there be restrictions on someone restarting a group that has just been expired due to low activity? If not, the net'll end up with a hierarchy akin to alt.* except for the need to restart the group occassionally. The difference would be in distribution. >No discussion. No argument. Just posting and reading, which is what USENET is. A lot of USENET is about pissing and moaning. > --------------------------------------- >Final Name: Decide that *in the group*, although I would be very surprised if > an experienced netter or two couldn't make up a good name in advance. >1 reader per 2 machines: If it can't get that, it's a waste of net bandwidth. >-- >Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 I could go along with this proposal. However, I believe there needs to be a few more lines of rules laid down. Twenty-five lines is a nice arbitrary limit, but I would rather see 26, if needed, to plug the holes. 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
justin@inmet.inmet.com (11/14/89)
/* Written 12:38 am Nov 12, 1989 by brad@looking.on.ca in inmet:news.groups */ >How to rename a trial group into mainstream USENET? I would be surprised >if, in 99% of all cases, an independent experienced netter couldn't come >up with a good descriptive name for the move. > >In the remaining 1% (or more, if you think so) let them hash it out *in* >the trial group, without annoying the rest of the net. Have a vote if you >must, or have somebody in the trial group who really opposes the independent >suggestion have a run-off vote between the independent suggestion an an >alternate. (Announce once in news.announce.newgroups or similar group) Great, but *how* does it get decided? If the group's future name isn't *quite* obvious, someone's going to disagree, and there needs to be some formal way to arbitrate that disagreement. And if that formal way isn't spelled out in the guidelines, it will *eat* the nascent group in argument. Basically, I think that you're glossing over a pretty serious issue here (although I do think that it's the only problem with your proposal). >But in most cases let's not pick the name by committee. A naming scheme must >be understandable, but most importantly, it must be *consistent*. Names >chosen in a series of votes or through 'net concenus' (whatever that is) will >not be consistent. If it's not consistent, it doesn't serve the purpose for >which it is intended. Agreed; probably the biggest problem with the current voting scheme (as with all too many voting schemes) is that the populace voting, in large part, doesn't understand what the relevant issues are. With a name decided by a committee, some atrocities would be likely. >Sadly, the case for the illusion of democracy is also strong, which is why we >have what we have now -- but it reduces the utility of the naming scheme. >I would be willing to say *all* names be chosen by a disinterested experienced >netter, but other people seem to resist that. They resist it for a valid >reason -- it's difficult to feel you can trust one person. But I do know >(and recent events prove it) that we can't trust the committee of 500. We can >be sure that they will be inconsistent. Actually, I agree here -- having a Naming Tsar would very likely be the simplest solution, and the most effective. If they only had power to control *where* the group goes, rather than *if* it gets created, it probably wouldn't be a dangerous amount of power to consolidate in one person. And I can think of at least half-a-dozen people who I'd trust with the job, given that limited power... >A tougher problem is now to deal with rec.sex. That group was passed and >not created, due to 'the cabal.' What would we do today if such a group were >proposed? I can't imagine a single democracy-like test (including my readership >level test) that wouldn't be passed by rec.sex. In the end, it would just >come down to scared sysadmins not forwarding the group as they wish, I guess. Just so. I mean, rec.sex *did* get created, it just wound up in alt. Nowadays, it's one of the most popular groups on the Net. In the new situation, I would expect to wind up with a moderately better readership and propagation; the really chickenshit sites would just refuse to create it when the newgroup went out. I have absolutely zero sympathy for sites that insist that the "official" hierarchies match up with their own desires for the Net. (And I'm still peeved at the members of the Cabal who insisted that rec.sex not be created at all, instead of just not carrying it at their sites...) -- Justin du Coeur
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (11/14/89)
In article <46614@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I would be willing to say *all* names be chosen by a disinterested experienced >netter, but other people seem to resist that. I think that's a fine idea (except make it 3-5 people). But you always insist on finding people who don't have strong opinions on the subject of naming. I claim such a person doesn't exist. Anyone who would be willing to volunteer the time, and take the inevitable flames and abuse that would go along with such a position, is going to have strong opinions on how groups should be named. That's why a small group would be necessary, to overcome possible strong biases of a single person that might lead to a bizarre decision in a particular case. --Greg
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/15/89)
In article <3004@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >Is "trial" going to get worldwide distribution or will many sites >limit it because it may carry non-productive proto-newsgroups at some >point. Other than starting with a clean slate, how would "trial" >differ from "alt"? Many sites will not get it. It will carry anything that is a serious attempt at a newsgroup. trial.sex, for example. Trial sysadmins would be expected to take more care with what they feed and take -- the whole point of trial, in fact, is to measure those decisions. Trial would have active sysadmins. It would differ from alt in that frivolous newgroups would not take place -- alt.weemba, net.db, etc. And the names would be chosen by one volunteer, so they would be consistent. And trial groups would, by and large, be rmgrouped if they fail. Unlike alt. >Please clarify "high readership". And, how about allowing for >topical, relatively short-lived groups to extend beyond the 6 months? High readership would be something like 2/readers per reporting site in trial, including sites that don't even get the group, but report that they don't get it. This number needs to be high enough to be clear to everybody. And yes, short lived groups could stay in trial, I suppose. >A lot of USENET is about pissing and moaning. But the growth of usenet is being stifled by that pissing and moaning. It's just not a productive use of our networking time. Sometimes I wonder how I can spend my time on a net where the big serious issues are things like "are fishies science or recreation" and "can we have a group about women and computers" and "hey, my vote bounced, the end is near." The trivial whino issues are overwhelming everything else. Perhaps I am the only one who thinks there might be better things to talk about, if there were room. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (11/15/89)
In article <5170@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <46614@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>I would be willing to say *all* names be chosen by a disinterested experienced >>netter, but other people seem to resist that. > > I think that's a fine idea (except make it 3-5 people). But you always insist >on finding people who don't have strong opinions on the subject of naming. >I claim such a person doesn't exist. Anyone who would be willing to volunteer >the time, and take the inevitable flames and abuse that would go along with >such a position, is going to have strong opinions on how groups should be >named. That's why a small group would be necessary, to overcome possible >strong biases of a single person that might lead to a bizarre decision in >a particular case. Instead of randomly speculating about this, why don't you try it? Line up a fairly heterogeneous group of five people and go through the last few "controversial" votes, and see how it turns out. I assume there isn't much point in trying this with non-controversial groups. Among the groups to be considered, I'd suggest: soc.sex comp.women comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac sci.skeptic soc.culture.{china/chinese} soc.culture.asean sci.groupware sci.aquaria rec.aquarium Also, I'd suggest that you post the membership of the New Improved Trial Newsgroup Name Cabal before the deliberation starts, and once it's over, each member should post his rationale (dissenting or affirming) for the name finally chosen for each of the trial groups. Let's get a taste of what's being proposed here. Or, if you feel that absence of discussion in news.groups (and except in a couple of cases, knowledge of the actual outcome) would influence the Cabal members, issue advisory pronunciamentos on the next five or ten actual newsgroup votes. If I remember correctly, there are at least six or seven ongoing votes/calls for discussion right now. As for picking the members, how about simply calling for volunteers and picking the ones who haven't expressed strong positions on naming issues? -- Dave Mack
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/17/89)
As quoted from <1989Nov15.063123.2360@alembic.acs.com> by csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack): +--------------- | Instead of randomly speculating about this, why don't you try it? | Line up a fairly heterogeneous group of five people and go through | the last few "controversial" votes, and see how it turns out. I > ( . . . ) | Also, I'd suggest that you post the membership of the New Improved | Trial Newsgroup Name Cabal before the deliberation starts, and once | it's over, each member should post his rationale (dissenting or | affirming) for the name finally chosen for each of the trial groups. | Let's get a taste of what's being proposed here. +--------------- Anyone for the net.Supreme.Court? ;-) +--------------- | As for picking the members, how about simply calling for volunteers | and picking the ones who haven't expressed strong positions on naming | issues? +--------------- I don't think that will work; such people likely won't volunteer. ++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.
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (11/18/89)
In article <46614@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
#How to rename a trial group into mainstream USENET? I would be surprised
#if, in 99% of all cases, an independent experienced netter couldn't come
#up with a good descriptive name for the move.
The problem with the trail newsgroup scheme is that, unless you have some
sort of voting scheme first :-), the initial group gets the name the
originator first thought of. Thus we might have had trial.sci.aquaria.
Then come the decision to move the group to the main net, there will be a
strong view of "we've got that name now, lets keep it, we'll move to
sci.aquaria". Especially as the people discussing things *in the trial
group* will be quite understandably more concerned with the needs of their
particular group than of the net in general.
I used to think that a trial group was a good idea, as it would show whether
there was enough volume to justify the subject. But the real problem is not
low-use groups (which don't really matter much), but badly named ones, which
make more work for the system admins, and (much more important) make it hard
for the users to find where to post things.
Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"
David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWWbrad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/19/89)
Actually, I thought I was clear that the trial name (and if I have my way the final name) are not chosen at all by the person who proposes the group, but instead by an independent person who volunteers to come up with good names. As I have said before, the most important attribute of a name hierarchy is that it be consistent. It's more important that it be consistent than "correct," whatever that means. Having group champs propose a name, or having people vote on a selection of names will never be consistent. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473