spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (04/04/88)
About 6 weeks ago a proposal was circulated to create a group named
"soc.sex". Ostensibly, the group was to channel discussions of a
sexual nature out of groups like soc.singles and rec.nude into
a newsgroup of their own. The suggested charter, however, included
suggestions that bothered a number of site admins, as did the
suggested name. A few postings were made detailing objections
and problems with the name and proposed content that were never
really adequately addressed; the vote was taken despite this.
The vote was in favor, but with considerable dissention, both in the
form votes and posted objections. A number of site admins publicly
stated they would not carry the group on their machines, either under
the name "soc.sex" or any other name. There are still unanswered
objections based on corporate and legal responsibilities, as well
as issues of taste.
I took a poll of the backbone admins to see how many would carry it
if it were created. This was not done as a form of "veto power,"
but to determine from a fair-size sample if the group had a chance
of reasonable propagation....it seems silly for me to list a
group in the list of net-wide groups if a significant majority of
major sites refuse to carry it.
Results: 11 US & Canadian sites will not carry it, 2 will, 2 might or
might not depending on name; the rest did not respond. The Australian
and European sites will not get the group.
Therefore, I will not list soc.sex as a group in the list of active
groups. That list is intended to reflect groups with wide-spread
propagation and support -- a soc.sex group would not qualify. If
somebody else decides to create the group, I will not "rmgroup" it
(although other site admins may -- the net is an anarchy, right?), but
it should be noted that there probably will be very limited propagation
as news admins either reject the group from their sites or alias it
into "junk". Creating it as an "alt" group is a better solution for
on-going existence and propagation. In many ways, the group would
resemble alt.drugs and alt.flame in nature and in the kinds of
opposition that make it undesireable as a "regular" newsgroup.
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafspaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (04/04/88)
In my original article I noted that there were posted objections
that were not answered by the time the vote was taken. This was
due to the fact that the vote was taken as soon as the idea was
suggested, rather than opening the group creation proposal to
comment before taking the vote.
In no way did I intend to make it sound as if the vote-taker,
Dan Roth, had ignored any comments prior to taking the vote.
My apologies to Dan if anyone got that impression. His enthusiasm
for the idea just got the better of him and he started the vote
before any posted objections reached him....
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafreid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) (04/04/88)
In article <3720@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: >... >Therefore, I will not list soc.sex as a group in the list of active >groups. That list is intended to reflect groups with wide-spread >propagation and support -- a soc.sex group would not qualify. If >somebody else decides to create the group, I will not "rmgroup" it > .... I have created the newsgroup alt.sex. That caused us to have both alt.sex and alt.drugs. It was then clearly necessary to have alt.rock-n-roll, so I created that too. Cut loose.
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (04/07/88)
Gene Spafford (spaf@cs.purdue.EDU) writes: > I took a poll of the backbone admins to see how many would carry it > if it were created. This was not done as a form of "veto power," > but to determine from a fair-size sample if the group had a chance > of reasonable propagation....it seems silly for me to list a > group in the list of net-wide groups if a significant majority of > major sites refuse to carry it. > > Results: 11 US & Canadian sites will not carry it, 2 will, 2 might or > might not depending on name; the rest did not respond. Normally speaking, when a new group is proposed and passes its vote, it is routinely created by the backbone. In view of this there is an argument to the effect that abstentions in Spaf's vote show, if not unconditional acceptance, at least probable tolerance of the proposed group. As there are over 30 North American backbone sites, this means that the majority of the sites that Spaf polled did abstain. > Creating it as an "alt" group is a better solution for > on-going existence and propagation. In many ways, the group would > resemble alt.drugs and alt.flame in nature and in the kinds of > opposition that make it undesireable as a "regular" newsgroup. I disagree. Sex is legal in most states. Recreational drugs mostly aren't. There are people to whom this matters. If I was a site admin, which I'm not, I would certainly carry soc.sex, and would not carry alt.drugs -- unless my managers objected in either case. The traffic on sex is already there in soc.singles, and I think it *is* desireable to split it out. This is why I voted yes on soc.sex. Alt.sex is not the right way to do this, if it will reach significantly fewer sites than soc.singles will. The creation of a mainstream newsgroup is the net's way of saying that this topic does not belong in other groups. The classic example is abortion. "Don't talk about abortion in soc.women. If you post at all, use talk.abortion. Talk.abortion was created by net consensus as the only place for discussions on this topic. If your site does not get talk.abortion, please respect this decision by your management and don't post about the topic at all." (My paraphrase-from-memory of text that I supplied for the netiquette document.) There are other examples, like *.sf-lovers and *.drwho. I claim that if soc.sex existed, the above paragraph could be applied to soc.singles and it; but with alt.sex not being an official newsgroup and not requiring any particular creation criteria, the paragraph cannot be applied. I would like to suggest that another vote be called. This time the voters should be asked to suggest alternate names that they would find acceptable. Thus we might have votes "No", "Yes under any name", "Yes only if soc.sex", "Yes only if soc.sex or soc.boink", "Yes but not soc.motos", etc. (Personally, I like soc.boink.) Admins of major sites who would NOT carry the vote if created, or who might carry it depending on the name, would be asked to identify themselves specifically as well as giving a personal vote if they want to. (In other words, I'd like to see a non-secret-ballot version of Spaf's poll.) The last two paragraphs are in the form if suggestions and requests because I'm not in a position to collect votes -- I'll be away for much of the coming 30 days. I hope someone else will volunteer to do so, by posting to news.groups. In the event of more than one volunteer, I suggest it be settled as was done with the recent rec.arts.books.sf vote. Followups have been directed to news.groups. Mark Brader "I conducted a Usenet poll ... on this subject ... Toronto Laura is single. By a 2-1 margin." -- Ken Perlow utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (04/14/88)
As quoted from <350@bacchus.DEC.COM> by reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid): +--------------- | I have created the newsgroup alt.sex. | That caused us to have both alt.sex and alt.drugs. | It was then clearly necessary to have alt.rock-n-roll, so I created that too. +--------------- Spaf must have one heck of a headache by now.... ;-) -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {well!hoptoad,uunet!hnsurg3,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery