kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (08/26/89)
This wasn't a "pretty debate" but I think a few things came out of it that make us all the better. I got the impression from Greg Woods personally that he really didn't mean anything by it, when he told me that he wouldn't create the group. He expected the group to be created ... but having voted against it, he didn't want to send the control message. He also pointed out that he is not the only one who receives the messages sent to "newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu" ... so perhaps someone else could have been found to create the group at that node anyway ... if that had had to be done. The problem then was as I see it, that some of the system administrators weren't fully aware that newsgroups can be legitimately created WITHOUT the message being sent by Spafford or Greg Woods. What legitimizes the creation of a group is the following the procedure defined in guidelines for doing so. So long as a group has received 100 more YES votes than NO votes and followed the rest of the guidelines, the group can legitimately be created WITHOUT Spafford's or Woods' intervention. This allows "democracy" to reign, and allows Woods and Spafford the right to hold opinions... like all the rest of us. There are drawbacks to being "Czar" ya know :-) :-) So if this discussion results in some of the smaller "vassals" in net-dom (eg the system administrators) to come to appreciate that they actually have more leeway in net-decisions than they thought ... that they DON'T have to follow Woods/Spafford's lead ... if they do not wish ... so long as they are following protocol ... and thus know what the protocol is, then this has been worth it. A net-Magna Carta?? So let's let the dust settle now... take care. dennis