vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (10/31/89)
I've been reading a lot of the garbage about this whole thing, and noting
a few things along the way. First, there are some really sick puppies out
there, on both sides. (And heaven knowns I'm probably one of them.) But
when you get things like the posting to alt.sex saying "This group is in
danger, if you don't want it censored, send mail saying YES in the subject
line to richard@gryphon.com...", and postings to mailing lists that have
nothing to do with the subject asking people to send (yes) votes on one
hand, and various people (Dianeh, Oleg, etc) saying "Why are you voting
no? Do you read alt.aquaria? Why does your opinion count?" Then things
are getting silly.
Why am I against it? Because I feel that it is a disservice to what I
think of as the net. As big a one as c.p.t.e. was.
I'll believe that the vote for sci.aquaria is valid and legit if you can
show me that you have more than 100 people posting to alt.aquaria,
let along 100 people who think of it more as a science than a hobby.
Alt.aquaria doesn't *have* 100 posters (or at least it didn't before
all this bruhaha started.) Therefore the people who count, the
ones *using* the group, can't even vote it past the 100 vote minimum.
Should there be a group sci.aquaria? I don't think so. Should there
be a group rec.aquaria? Maybe, I don't care. The only thing I do know
is that, however many votes Richard gets, 95% of them are just so much
garbage, both the aye's and the nay's.
Richard has said that he doesn't know that the European sites
are now getting rec.*, even though several posters (from sites with
domains like uk and se and fi) have said that they did. Sorry Richard,
I tend to believe their report, being there, more than your belief.
Technical discussions? Come on over to alt.sca. Over time you'll see
discussions on various tuning methods of medieval instruments, including
discussion of accidental harmonics and the physics of how the ear hears
them; detailed discussions on the types and methods of construction of
chainmail and boiled leather, detailed discussions on the nature of
the middle ages from the point of view an economist... along with
a lot of general discussion about the middle ages and how poor a job
SCA does in recreating it, all with remarkably little verbal violence
(none of which, of what I've seen, merits the title "flame".) But,
in spite of the amount of time and money we may have spent learning
to use gold leaf, it is *just* a hobby. Funny how that works.
I voted no for sci.aquaria. I don't recall getting a confurmation,
so perhaps I had best send it again. Certainly I didn't get a note
like Laurie did. Then again, few people would mistake me for Chuq...
--
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
The other car collided with mine without giving warning of its intentions.alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (11/01/89)
In article <11171@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: >But when you get things like the posting to alt.sex saying "This group is in >danger, if you don't want it censored, send mail saying YES in the subject >line to richard@gryphon.com..." ... This one had me worried. Whatever my feelings are, I am opposed to anything that subverts a vote. So I looked in alt.sex and found the posting. First, it wasn't written by Richard. Second, the text of the article made it EXTREMELY clear what the vote was about (it said the text of the article had to explicitly say 'I vote YES for sci.aquaria'). Third, there wasn't even any politicking in the article (no 'vote for this to preserve the purity of the net', or any such garbage). Fourth, it was immediately recognized for what it was, and people were immediately posting replies warning anyone who might possibly have been confused. (It was so clear that I normally wouldn't have thought anyone COULD have been confused by it, but after Zaphod missed the blatent sarcasm in a previous posting of mine I'm not so sure.) In reality, I suspect that it probably generated more NO votes than YES votes if it generated anything. >Why am I against it? Because I feel that it is a disservice to what I >think of as the net. As big a one as c.p.t.e. was. Fine. Feel free to vote no. As long as you don't think your vote is worth more than 100s of other people's votes (as some people on the net seem to), I have no problem with that. >I'll believe that the vote for sci.aquaria is valid and legit if you can >show me that you have more than 100 people posting to alt.aquaria, >let along 100 people who think of it more as a science than a hobby. >Alt.aquaria doesn't *have* 100 posters (or at least it didn't before >all this bruhaha started.) Therefore the people who count, the >ones *using* the group, can't even vote it past the 100 vote minimum. If this is your criteria, I don't see how any new group can be formed. After all, if the group doesn't exist yet - how can it have 100 current interested posters? You are ignoring three things. First, there are likely to be more people who aren't current posters who would be if the group was in rec. or sci. (if not, Richard wouldn't be trying to move the group). Second, there are people who might have a strong opinion and want to vote who won't be posters (it is surprising that you dismiss this group since you seem to be in it). Finally, who knows how many people read the group without posting? I sure don't. >Should there be a group sci.aquaria? I don't think so. Should there >be a group rec.aquaria? Maybe, I don't care. The only thing I do know >is that, however many votes Richard gets, 95% of them are just so much >garbage, both the aye's and the nay's. Personally, I don't consider your vote any less garbage than the others ... but I respect it anyway. If you start to ignore the results of free elections - no matter how much they disagree with what you think is 'right' - then you cross over the line from a democracy to a dictatorship. Now, there have been a lot of people claiming that Usenet should be a dictatorship (of course, a benevolent dictatorship, preferably with them or someone who agrees with them as dictator), and there have been a lot of people claiming that the Usenet democracy doesn't work - because it is producing a result that they don't like. My personal opinion is that Usenet should remain a chaotic democracy with all of its flaws. I don't trust a dictatorship to remain benevolent, and the postings I have seen from the people running for the position do not convince me that it will even start benevolent. >Richard has said that he doesn't know that the European sites >are now getting rec.*, even though several posters (from sites with >domains like uk and se and fi) have said that they did. Sorry Richard, >I tend to believe their report, being there, more than your belief. If you had followed all the postings, you would have seen that the main backbones now get rec (a lot of them even get alt), but due to the structure in Europe these are still not relayed to a lot of the sites. What the percentage is, I don't know. Neither do you. Neither does Richard, but the research he has done has shown that most of the people he would like to get to he can't. >I voted no for sci.aquaria. I don't recall getting a confurmation, >so perhaps I had best send it again. Certainly I didn't get a note >like Laurie did. Then again, few people would mistake me for Chuq... I didn't get a 'confurmation' either, but I wouldn't worry. Richard has to post the votes when the vote is over, and if he tries to lose votes I am sure that there are plenty of people like you who will catch him at it.
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (11/10/89)
In article <1989Nov8.000550.21341@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >Precisely. And under the existing procedure, and even more so in the >procedure Peter is pushing, the minority who are concerned about the >name can block the creation of the newsgroup altogether. This gives >them too much power. Agreed. 100 NO vote vetoes is fundamentally flawed. >There is an easy (but ugly) fix for this problem. Hold separate votes >for the group charter and the group name. Then the people who want to >have the group but don't care about the name can vote on the charter. >If that vote passes, those who care about the name can pick one in the >second vote, with the caveat that *some* group must be created as a >result of the name vote. If it turns out to be sci.aquaria, so be it. >If it turns out to be rec.aquaria, so be it. At least you know that >the people who voted in the second vote are concerned about what the >newsgroup's name is, not just whether or not it will be created. Actually, this method is flawed as well. It can be 'rigged' by the appropriate selection of groups to vote on. For instance, sci.aquaria might be run against rec.aquaria, rec.aquarium, and rec.pets.aquaria. In this case (even with your assumptions about peoples preferences) sci.aquaria might easily win due to the dilution of the opposition between different possibilities. Check out my recent proposal (the MAUVE scheme) and I think you will see that it would solve all of these problems without even going to a second vote, and without the pathological problems of STV that you alluded to. -- --------| Fall not in love, therefore. It will stick to your face. Alien | - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/10/89)
In article <1989Nov10.043823.6732@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > You can't be serious. You agree with me? This is almost funny. I've been saying things like this for months now. I'm the guy who started the whole Single Transferrable Vote process off. I even held a vote *using* it. The only reason I've been pushing simpler proposals is because anything more complex is, well, too complex. > >> The last time I suggested this, you screamed bloody murder because I > >> included a statement to the effect that those who voted NO for the group > >> shouldn't have any say in its name. > >That's right, and I still claim that. Your argument against it was also totally > >without merit. > I guess you didn't read the next couple of paragraphs before you wrote > this, right? You wouldn't just take a cheap shot, right? No, actually, I was cutting down the attributed text. I don't see the cheap shot. Your argument against allowing NO voters to vote on the name, that is that they might force the group into an inappropriate place, is totally without merit. Simply because (as I commented later on... what's this about cheap shots) if they can't form a voting block good enough to kill the group they certainly won't be able to so anything as subtle as this. And to put my monet where my mouth is: when I held the vote on talk. computers, I explicitly requested a vote on the name from ALL "no" voters. > >Exactly. And, FOR THE SAME REASON, spoilers won't be the deciding factor in > >any "100 NO vote" variant. All it will do (again, look at history) is force > >bozos to play by the rules. > You're amazing, Peter. You create a rule SPECIFICALLY to permit you and > your buddies to cancel a vote if you don't like the name, then you > make this statement. No, not if I don't like the name. If there is considerable controversy over the name. It's been in the guidelines from the beginning that there has to be agreement over the name before the vote starts. If there is general agreement on a name I think bad, that's too bad for me. It's happened in the past, comp.sw.components and comp.object for example, and will happen in the future. I voted YES for both these groups despite thinking the name was not the best possible, because there *was* agreement on the name. These three lines, I'll repeat them, are a complete distortion of what I've been arguing for, under multiple proposals, for months. I'm beginning to get a mite upset over them. -> You're amazing, Peter. You create a rule SPECIFICALLY to permit you and -> your buddies to cancel a vote if you don't like the name, then you -> make this statement. > You really do think the rest of us are stupid, don't you? *FLAME ON* Well, you're really trying hard to convince me. *FLAME OFF* -- `-_-' 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) (11/10/89)
In article <1989Nov10.043823.6732@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > Perhaps you weren't aware that a simultaneous vote was (and perhaps still > is) going on for a group named "rec.aquarium"? That's not an equivalent group. I was going to call for a *real* counter- vote for rec.aquaria, and even sent in a proposal to Greg Woods, but this clumsy-sounding variant beat me and I told Greg to cancel mine. -- `-_-' 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
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/11/89)
In article <1989Nov10.043823.6732@alembic.acs.com>, csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > Perhaps you weren't aware that a simultaneous vote was (and perhaps still > is) going on for a group named "rec.aquarium"? This vast majority of > yours has probably been pouring their votes in to whoever-the-hell was > running that, right? Don't worry then, Peter, rec.aquarium will > undoubtedly pass by the widest margin in the history of the net and > you'll be able to rmgroup sci.aquaria at Ferranti without feeling guilty > about depriving all of your aquarist coworkers of their group. > He has nothing to feel guilty about in any case. FICC has no obligation to its employees to carry any particular group. There are some I wish we would carry that we don't, but I don't claim their absence here is unethical. Jeff Daiell -- "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/11/89)
In article <6909@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > And to put my monet where my mouth is: I get the picture! -- "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) (11/11/89)
In article <1989Nov10.034953.6351@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >> The voters mainly care about whether or not a group exists, >>not whether it's correctly named. >Dead right. Which is why a handful of Namespace Purists shouldn't be allowed >to deprive them of it. OK, fine. I await with bated breath your proposal to rename {comp, news, misc, sci, talk, rec, soc}.* to net.*. Someone earlier mentioned that they'd rather see the group created with the wrong name than no have it created at all. I take the opposite view, for one reason: it's much easier to fix a mistake in that direction. If sci.aquaria had failed, a vote for rec.aquaria would have followed almost immediately, and would almost certainly have passed overwhelmingly. Instead, we have made the mistake, and are condemned to putting up with it forever, or at least until the next Great Renaming. -- 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
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) (11/11/89)
In article <1989Nov10.041227.6622@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >Agreed, it's not a realistic result. Then why bother bringing it up? >Then why didn't the YES voters vote NO to sci.aquaria and wait for the >"correctly" named group to roll around? The answer, IMVHO, is because >they felt that the name Richard selected was reasonable, that his >concerns about distribution were valid, and they saw no reason to wait >at least five weeks to make a handful of structure freaks happy. Aw, cmon. I doubt seriously that any significant fraction of the 466 YES voters gave ti that much thought. "Hey, I want an aquarium group! I'll vote YES!" Conversely, over 300 people most likely did give it that much thought. "Handful of structure freaks"? More like a handful of people who want to destroy the Great Renaming. -- 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
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/11/89)
In article <1989Nov11.024604.12230@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > "Not an equivalent group"? In what sense? An equivalent group would have the same name and charter, but in rec instead of sci. There was active opposition to the names "aquarium", "aquariums", and so on. Or didn't you notice *that* little offshoot of this debate? When you're experimenting, it makes no sense to change too many variables at once if you can help it. -- `-_-' 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
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (11/12/89)
In article <1989Nov10.034953.6351@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes:
)> The voters mainly care about whether or not a group exists,
)>not whether it's correctly named.
)Dead right. Which is why a handful of Namespace Purists shouldn't be allowed
)to deprive them of it.
)Dave Mack
Ok guys!! We have Dave Mack's approval to create rec.aquaria
rather than sci.aquaria!!
1/2 :-)
--
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..."gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (11/13/89)
price@mpx0.lanl.gov (The Quantum Mechanic) writes:
)Now, maybe I'm being naive, but this whole discussion seems to be missing
)the point. The *real* question, as far as I can tell, is:
)
) *Why* is sci.* distributed more widely than rec.*?
Because sci means science, and science is serious and real and
people make money off it. So a lot of places will take sci.* that
won't take soc.* or rec.* or talk.*. Especially for-profit
businesses with active bean-counters.
What we should be trying to do is sneak as much good stuff into
these places under sci.* as possible -- not going along with their
absurd concepts of value. I'm still waiting for sci.sex and
sci.flame and sci.bizarre. And of course the comp.eniac
hierarchy....
--
* Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf *csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (11/13/89)
In article <3031@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <1989Nov10.041227.6622@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >>Then why didn't the YES voters vote NO to sci.aquaria and wait for the >>"correctly" named group to roll around? The answer, IMVHO, is because >>they felt that the name Richard selected was reasonable, that his >>concerns about distribution were valid, and they saw no reason to wait >>at least five weeks to make a handful of structure freaks happy. > >Aw, cmon. I doubt seriously that any significant fraction of the 466 YES >voters gave ti that much thought. "Hey, I want an aquarium group! I'll >vote YES!" WARNING TO SCI.AQUARIA "YES" VOTERS: Jay Maynard can READ YOUR MIND! THINK NO IMPURE THOUGHTS! Right, Jay. Not a one of them thought "Hey, Richard's got a point. If it's in sci, we'll have better connectivity. We'll be able to discuss this with the aquaria hotshots in Europe." > Conversely, over 300 people most likely did give it that much >thought. "Handful of structure freaks"? More like a handful of people >who want to destroy the Great Renaming. OK, Jay, you caught us. It *was* a conspiracy. We were all sitting around one day and somebody said, "Hey, remember the Good Olde Days, when all the groups were named net-something or mod-something? Don't you just hate this new hierarchy thing?" So we came up with this plan to undo the Great Renaming because none of us could figure out how to build a time machine. Get real, Jay. Did it ever occur to you that maybe not everyone shares your priorities? -- Dave Mack Treasurer, People's USENET Liberation Army
csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (11/13/89)
In article <11462@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: >In article <1989Nov10.034953.6351@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >)> The voters mainly care about whether or not a group exists, >)>not whether it's correctly named. > >)Dead right. Which is why a handful of Namespace Purists shouldn't be allowed >)to deprive them of it. >)Dave Mack > > Ok guys!! We have Dave Mack's approval to create rec.aquaria >rather than sci.aquaria!! Hey, go for it. You create rec.aquaria, I'll create sci.aquaria, Bryce can create rec.aquarium for the people who only own one, and everyone will live happily everafter once the rmgroup-newgroup wars die down. Remember: it's an anarchy, it's not real life, they're only guidelines, chew your food thoroughly, floss every day, put that down you could poke your brother's eye out. -- Dave "One Eye" Mack
bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (11/13/89)
[ Administrivia: the References line had gotten long enough on ] [ the original that followups made a line >256 characters long ] [ crashing rn. ] Dave Mack blathers out the following: |(in response to Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) | |Right, Jay. Not a one of them thought "Hey, Richard's got a point. If it's |in sci, we'll have better connectivity. We'll be able to discuss this |with the aquaria hotshots in Europe." Here's a little exercise for you. Send mail to everyone who voted YES. Ask them if they know where in the world the most knowledgeable aquaria experts are. If over 10% of them say Europe, I'll personally apologize for all of my flames against the sci.aquaria folks and come out in support of sci.aquaria. The facts are, over 90% of the YES voters either didn't give a damn and voted for it just because it was an aquaria newsgroup, or voted for it purely out of net.politics. Jay has hit the point nearly exactly, and you're just being a flaming idiot. |> Conversely, over 300 people most likely did give it that much |>thought. "Handful of structure freaks"? More like a handful of people |>who want to destroy the Great Renaming. | |OK, Jay, you caught us. It *was* a conspiracy. We were all sitting |around one day and somebody said, "Hey, remember the Good Olde Days, |when all the groups were named net-something or mod-something? Don't |you just hate this new hierarchy thing?" So we came up with this plan |to undo the Great Renaming because none of us could figure out how to |build a time machine. Richard and his buddies look upon the Great Renaming in much the same way that politicians look upon promises: nice to have around, but the first time it gets inconvienent, dump it. How much different is that than "wanting to destroy the Great Renaming"? Not zarking much. |Get real, Jay. Did it ever occur to you that maybe not everyone |shares your priorities? The net would be a much better place if more did. B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | "Ich bin ein Berliner!" -- President Kennedy, 1961 (alias B.E.E.) | "Tear down this wall!" -- President Reagan, 1987 bee@cs.purdue.edu | ..!purdue!bee | Berlin Wall RIP 1961-1989
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/13/89)
In article <1989Nov8.175742.26013@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >BFD. The net's gotten bigger, too. According to the latest arbitron stats, >there are over half a million people who read news. The total number of >votes cast here is in the noise. In five years, a thousand NO votes >probably won't be unusual. As an additional data point, the total number >of votes cast is less than 10% of the number of news system administrators >on the net, assuming one newsadmin per site in the arbitron stats. In >other words, Peter, over 90% of the people who are most likely to be >concerned with the namespace structure didn't care enough about whether >the group was in rec or sci to bother to vote. No wonder you're trying >to get a 100 NO vote limit installed. You can't even convince your peers >that you're right. ....and on the topic of wild ideas.... Perhaps each newsadmin would accept opinions from his/her news readers and then issue one single "vote" for that site. As it is quite true that the size of USENET is growing almost exponentially, each newsadmin in effect acting on his own user poll would serve to temper the flood of weighted opinion from individual sites (there were some complaints re. this point recently). There are precedents in some political systems. Sometimes elected officials make our laws, sometimes the bodies involved in lawmaking aren't elected at all (eg. Canada's appointed Senate - I'm not trying to justify this, merely to illuminate this possiblity). Would such a system be viable or even desireable? Should all valid votes originate from "usenet@site_name" ? Spare the flames, I'm merely posting a point for discussion. Would one vote per site be viable? >Dave Mack 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
dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) (11/13/89)
In <8624@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes: [^--I doubt it, but okay...] >Richard and his buddies look upon the Great Renaming in much the same >way that politicians look upon promises: nice to have around, but the >first time it gets inconvienent, dump it. How much different is that >than "wanting to destroy the Great Renaming"? Not zarking much. Zark you, "Zaphod". (Why on earth would such an uptight asshole call himself Zaphod Beeblebrox? I don't doubt that you can probably quote HGttG front-cover to back-cover and everywhere in-between -- that'd be predictable; but that doesn't mean you got it. You didn't. Better go read the books again, yo-yo.) Diane Holt (dianeh@binky.UUCP) "Arthur slept; he was terribly tired."
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/13/89)
In article <373@panix.UUCP> gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > price@mpx0.lanl.gov (The Quantum Mechanic) writes: > ) *Why* is sci.* distributed more widely than rec.*? > Because sci means science, and science is serious and real and > people make money off it... i.e., these groups are oriented towards activities that make money for their readers. I'm not sure I agree entirely, but since that's your definition I'll accept it. > What we should be trying to do is sneak as much good stuff into > these places under sci.* as possible -- not going along with their > absurd concepts of value. So you're saying your own definition of the hierarchy is absurd. I think you're a little confused. -- `-_-' 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
" Maynard) (11/14/89)
In article <1989Nov12.223427.7836@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <3031@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>Aw, cmon. I doubt seriously that any significant fraction of the 466 YES >>voters gave ti that much thought. "Hey, I want an aquarium group! I'll >>vote YES!" >Right, Jay. Not a one of them thought "Hey, Richard's got a point. If it's >in sci, we'll have better connectivity. We'll be able to discuss this >with the aquaria hotshots in Europe." Doubtful. Quite aside from the fact that the Europeans themselves said that they probably _would_ get rec.aquaria (and they would be the authorities on the subject), those who thought that are most likely few in number and using that as a convenient excuse. Putting a rec.* group in sci.* just to improve distribution is fraud. >> Conversely, over 300 people most likely did give it that much >>thought. "Handful of structure freaks"? More like a handful of people >>who want to destroy the Great Renaming. >Get real, Jay. Did it ever occur to you that maybe not everyone >shares your priorities? A namespace is either clear, consistent, and commonly understood or unusable. Mistakes like sci.aquaria, comp.[society.]women, sci.skeptic, and misc.headlines.unitex move the namespace toward the unusable side. -- 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
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (11/14/89)
In article <1989Nov13.071055.9401@xenitec.on.ca>, edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes: > In article <1989Nov8.175742.26013@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > >BFD. The net's gotten bigger, too. According to the latest arbitron stats, > >there are over half a million people who read news. ............... These are the people who use usenet. Should they not decide? > ....and on the topic of wild ideas.... > Perhaps each newsadmin would accept opinions from his/her news readers > and then issue one single "vote" for that site. As it is quite true > that the size of USENET is growing almost exponentially, each newsadmin > in effect acting on his own user poll would serve to temper the flood > of weighted opinion from individual sites (there were some complaints > re. this point recently). It is easier to point out for technical groups that this is not a particularly good idea, but it is not limited to them. One site may have more than 100 users in a given area, and another site 0. Should these sites have the same number of votes? For a non-technical group, one site may have 100 people in Middle Eastern politics. > There are precedents in some political systems. Sometimes elected > officials make our laws, sometimes the bodies involved in lawmaking > aren't elected at all (eg. Canada's appointed Senate - I'm not trying > to justify this, merely to illuminate this possiblity). Would such > a system be viable or even desireable? Should all valid votes originate > from "usenet@site_name" ? > > Spare the flames, I'm merely posting a point for discussion. > > Would one vote per site be viable? What is a site? Is it a single machine, a collection of machines with a single sysadmin, a collection of machines with a single corporate or university owner, or what? The machine I am using is the "property" of the Statistics Department at Purdue University, and is administered by the Computing Center. Is it a separate site, or is it included in the Computing Center site, or is it just part of the Purdue University site? And even if we can clearly define a site, some sites are single personal computers. If I had three of these, should I have three votes? My colleagues and I may or may not agree, but I believe that all of us who read the netnews should vote individually, as now. What is wrong with us discussing in person the proposed groups, instead of just on the net? -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (11/15/89)
>>>>> On 13 Nov 89 07:10:55 GMT, edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) said:
Ed> [...only sysadmins/newsadmins would vote on new groups...] Would such
Ed> a system be viable or even desireable? Should all valid votes
Ed> originate from "usenet@site_name" ?
Or news@site, or root@site? Not everyone uses 'usenet'. Modifying that
slightly and saying it has to come from the listed contact from the map
entry... well, maybe. Assuming that the sys/newsadmin (admin hereafter)
votes, and that nobody's forging the admin's mail, and that the system even
*has* a news or system administrator...
Ed> Spare the flames, I'm merely posting a point for discussion.
Ed> Would one vote per site be viable?
Sounds good to me. But I want all those NNTP workstation votes. Maybe I
should take gnus-use-generic-from out of my .emacs file--I could get votes
for bucsb, bucsf, bu-pub, bass, corona, miller, pabst, stpauli, labatts,
harp, molson, xx, ...
I don't think so, in other words.
--
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."gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (11/16/89)
In article <6938@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: )In article <373@panix.UUCP> gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: )> price@mpx0.lanl.gov (The Quantum Mechanic) writes: )> ) *Why* is sci.* distributed more widely than rec.*? ) )> Because sci means science, and science is serious and real and )> people make money off it... ) )i.e., these groups are oriented towards activities that make money )for their readers. I'm not sure I agree entirely, but since that's )your definition I'll accept it. ) )> What we should be trying to do is sneak as much good stuff into )> these places under sci.* as possible -- not going along with their )> absurd concepts of value. ) )So you're saying your own definition of the hierarchy is absurd. I think )you're a little confused. You know, one of the things we need on the net is a symbol for irony. I have a problem with ":-)" because I don't smile when I'm being ironic. Besides, it looks stupid, which is striking a little bit close to home. I'm open to suggestions. How about "[*IRONY*]" or maybe for the scientifically sophisticated, "[Fe]"? -- * Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf *
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov13.071055.9401@xenitec.on.ca>, edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes: | Would one vote per site be viable? It brings up the question of why one site with 40 readers has less influence than 10 readers on workstations. And how do I count the people reading via rrn? Do I count readers (~1000), workstations (~300) or copies of the articles on disk (1). I'm not knocking your proposal, just noting that it brings up issues on its own. My suggestion that votes by sysdms only *weighted by phone bills* was intended to spur some better suggestions, but all the people who don't pay the bills think I'm trying to disenfranchise them. I am. -- 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