jj@alice.UUCP (03/04/86)
While in general I agree with Lauren's first point, that voting makes sense one/site, I also fear that given the inactivity of some sites, and the hostility (or financial condition) of others, renders this somewhat flawed as well. As far as 'yes' votes being more likely, I disagree. Given my experiences on the net (I've suggested adding three new newsgroups at one time or another), it's been my experience that there is a dedicated cadre of about ~20 people who automatically vote 'no' to any new group, regardless of (perceived) need. From what I've heard from other folks, it seems like this isn't limited to my experience. This seems to be to be a form of ballot box stuffing, or perhaps just desire to make the network stop evolving and eventually become extinct. Since 8 of the 'no' votes were form letters that didn't change ANY over the 8 months in question, I think that this position is pretty well supported. (I find the idea of a canned 'no' vote a bit repugnant, just as I would find a canned 'yes' vote. I haven't seen any canned 'yes' votes yet.) I don't, unfortunately, have a good idea for how to add newsgroups. IF the net was a collection of cooperating entities, perhaps voting 1/site would work, but given the reactionaries and such, I don't know how to ensure a 'fair' vote. In the past, I've argued for automatic newsgroup retirement, with automatic restoration upon new traffic. Several people have picked up on this idea, but no one has yet written any accepted software. Currently Spaf serves this purpose, by watching the news statistics and doing something when a group becomes terminally inactive. This is not only a lot of work for Gene, but also prone to drawing fire from people who don't notice something until it bites them in the leg. Since I've drawn my share of net fire, I know just how unpleasant this is. (It also tends to get rid of volunteers.) In the past, USENET has been a co-operative venture, with volunteers doing the work. Given that the co-operative nature is rapidly disappearing, we're going to have to find someone willing to do the work, and also provide an INCENTIVE to do it, if it's going to survive. The problem of how to create a newsgroup, I suggest, is merely secondary to the MAIN problem of what's wrong with the net. Enjoy it while it lasts, folks! -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LOTS OF PATIENCE, BUT THEY CAN FIGHT BACK! "You're loosin' 'em, you're loosin' 'em, hold up your trousers high!" (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/05/86)
> I don't, unfortunately, have a good idea for how to add newsgroups. > IF the net was a collection of cooperating entities, perhaps > voting 1/site would work, but given the reactionaries and > such, I don't know how to ensure a 'fair' vote. In general, I agreed with Lauren's comments on creating new groups. There are a couple of suggestions I've made in the past that I think are worth considering, so I'll toss them out once again into the void: o No new group is created unless the net can agree on another group to get rid of with a rmgroup. I think that there are MORE than enough groups on the net, but most of them are or little to no value. Among other things, this will guarantee that the people wanting the new group are serious (do we need net.foobar MORE than we need net.wobegon?) and will help clean up the naming space and make it more efficient and useful. o Rather than one vote per site, make it one vote per feed, with votes being made by the SA. This gives the sites that are funding the net, the backbones, the added priviledge of helping to decide where the money they are spending on this thing is used. chuq -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.ARPA FidoNet: 125/84 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!chuq Somehow, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore...
gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) (03/06/86)
I have always been a firm believer in democratic procedure. This
principle, I velieve, should be used in USENET as well. Otherwise, we
have the current situation where a few control the masses (can you say
dictatorship, I knew you could!) I do not mean the previous statement
as a slur against those who keep the network running, however there
have been isolated incidents which resulted in lots of confusion,
anger and (worst of all) postings which wouldn't have been posted if
more democratic means had been taken to solve the problems.
My model of how the USENET voting procedure would run is similar to
that of the electoral college. Each site gets to vote based upon how
many feeds they have, whether news developers are at that site, or
news moderators, or uucp map keepers, or what have you. These factors
will have to be weighted of course. The site vote is cast in the
person of the news administrator.
There are those who seem to have a problem with this scheme. I wonder
why this is so. Do these same people complain about political
elections? I do not see them writing letters to their Congressmen or
Senators claiming that the elections are unfair, because their states
may not have enough free space to accomodate new technology,
out-of-state/country individuals, etc. Perhaps I am reaching a bit,
but bear with me.
I guess what I am tryng to say is that fair is fair. What goes on in
USENET should not be decided by a select few, it should be decided in
a democratic manner. There should be some agreement among those who
participate in USENET that yes, you will have to play by the rules, or
else you have to get out of the game. (I know no such agreement
exists now, but in the future, failure to comply with the by-laws of
the net should be met with the possible suspension and/or removal of a
site from the net.)
One other thing: I do not believe there should be a ceiling on the #
of groups that are allowed. Since some sites don't carry all the
groups anyway, there's no reason why they should have direct influence
over those sites who are willing to carry them.
In closing, I have heard comments in the vein of "people do not
realize the responsibility inherent in anarchy". I wonder, for those
who favor a backbone-run network, do you realize the danger inherent
in dictatorship?
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, gatech, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@eddie.mit.eduwoods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/07/86)
> o Rather than one vote per site, make it one vote per feed, with votes being > made by the SA. This gives the sites that are funding the net, the > backbones, the added priviledge of helping to decide where the money > they are spending on this thing is used. I agree with this idea in general (since it has become obvious to me with what is going on at HAO in the wake of Gramm-Rudman that we will do what we have to do with or without the cooperation of the rest of the net, but it's easier and more efficient with). I do have a question, though. How does one define "feed"? We have 4 main news connections; two are "down- stream" and get all their news from us (nbires and noao, and they in turn feed dozens of other sites that also ultimately get all their news through us). We also have two backbone connections; one of them (seismo) we receive far more from than we transmit to, and the other (hplabs) it looks like we send and receive about the same amount to. So how many votes would we get? How many votes would a site like nbires above get? --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
woods@hao.UUCP (03/08/86)
No reason why Spaf should always have to take all the heat, so I will take a stab at responding to this one. Obviously, the person who wrote this has no idea what is involved in administrating a backbone site. Let me see if I can enlighten you. > My model of how the USENET voting procedure would run is similar to > that of the electoral college. Each site gets to vote based upon how > many feeds they have, whether news developers are at that site, or > news moderators, or uucp map keepers, or what have you. Sounds good, but I'll wait until I see a reasonable implementation. See my previous article in this discussion. What's a "feed"? Does a long distance "feed" get more votes than a local one? What if they send us more than we send them? In short, good idea in theory, but an accounting nightmare (does that phrase sound familiar to anyone? :-) > There are those who seem to have a problem with this scheme. I wonder > why this is so. Simple practicality. Let's take a "close-to-home" example, with my recent cut of the "soapbox" groups from the hao system. Suppose the net as a whole, including my vote(s), decides that we should keep the soapbox groups. I tell my management this, and they say "off the net". Of course, that isn't what I would do. What I would probably do is cut the groups anyway, which results in an even worse situation that we currently have. Those "downstream" sites still get net.philosophy. You are correct that the sites that are willing to carry the groups should be allowed to continue to do so even if I drop them. But if they do, they shouldn't call the group net.something. They should be calling it co.philosophy, because that's what it effectively is there (unless someone has started a back door feed for those groups, which I doubt). The *FACT* is that the backbone sites WILL decide what net.* groups will exist whatever votes are taken. You cannot tell us what we have to pay for. And, equally true, I can't tell YOU what NOT to pay for. Any vote taken that doesn't have the approval of the backbone sites is a joke. Or at least, it isn't a NET group. > I guess what I am tryng to say is that fair is fair. What goes on in > USENET should not be decided by a select few, it should be decided in > a democratic manner. Wrong. It is and will be decided by those who bear the brunt of the cost. No amount of voting will reinstate net.flame, net.bizzare or net.religion on my machine, and since we pay most of the cost of transporting the news into Colorado, we effectively "vote" for all of those sites too, like it or not (in case you get the wrong idea, I'm not too thrilled about having to cut people off from news they want, but I'm constrained by budgets just like any other Gramm-Rudman site). > There should be some agreement among those who > participate in USENET that yes, you will have to play by the rules, or > else you have to get out of the game. I agree, except that what you mean by "the rules" and what I mean by that are different. We pay for it. You get what WE pay for (of course, if you want to pay for it yourself....) > (I know no such agreement > exists now, but in the future, failure to comply with the by-laws of > the net should be met with the possible suspension and/or removal of a > site from the net.) Oh? And what happens to the sites downstream from us if you decide to remove us from the net? Are you SURE that's the way you want to proceed? > One other thing: I do not believe there should be a ceiling on the # > of groups that are allowed. Since some sites don't carry all the > groups anyway, there's no reason why they should have direct influence > over those sites who are willing to carry them. Fine. Just don't call them NET groups if the backbone doesn't carry them. There will always be a ceiling on the number of NET groups. However many LOCAL groups you want will depend on the users and software in your area. > I wonder, for those > who favor a backbone-run network, do you realize the danger inherent > in dictatorship? I sure do. I hear you wanting to tell us how we have to spend our money. *THAT* sounds like dictatorship. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
craig@dcl-cs.UUCP (03/08/86)
In article <1984@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP writes: > o Rather than one vote per site, make it one vote per feed, with votes being > made by the SA. This gives the sites that are funding the net, the > backbones, the added priviledge of helping to decide where the money > they are spending on this thing is used. What about sites outside the US guys ? I the UK the cost is spread over ALL the sites. We want a vote too. If you carry the those who pay concept to the UK then every tax payer in the country might be allowed a vote. A question ( I know something like it has been asked before but I can't remember if this particular point was aired). I know that we discussed whether non backbone sites might call their feed and in this way spread the cost. This was seen as difficult to implement. OK do non backbone sites pay anything (even a subscription )? Craig. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research Group
gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) (03/09/86)
In article <1986@hao.UUCP>, woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > > No reason why Spaf should always have to take all the heat, so I will > take a stab at responding to this one. Obviously, the person who wrote > this has no idea what is involved in administrating a backbone site. > Let me see if I can enlighten you. Obviously, you have forgotten that not too long ago, I administrated the hub of netnews for a large computing facility (25 machines). I was on the critical path from ihnp4 to most of the other large computing facilities in Bell Labs. I think that qualifies me to speak on this subject (which I have spoken before, in fact in argument with this same person, who hasn't changed from his last stance, by the way), so let me proceed. > > > My model of how the USENET voting procedure would run is similar to > > that of the electoral college. (short description) > > Sounds good, but I'll wait until I see a reasonable implementation. > See my previous article in this discussion. What's a "feed"? Does a long > distance "feed" get more votes than a local one? What if they send us > more than we send them? In short, good idea in theory, but an accounting > nightmare (does that phrase sound familiar to anyone? :-) Like I said, there are many factors which can go into the weighting. I agree that long-distance feeds should be weighed more heavily than local calls. Volume of news transmitted should also be a factor (if you bear the brunt more than someone, naturally you should have more of a say in how the entire net is run). As I think of more things I'll list them, but I agree -- it is an accounting nightmare. > > There are those who seem to have a problem with this scheme. I wonder > > why this is so. > > Simple practicality. Let's take a "close-to-home" example, with my recent > cut of the "soapbox" groups from the hao system. Suppose the net as a whole, > including my vote(s), decides that we should keep the soapbox groups. Before you go on, note that my scheme *in no way* dictates how a host handles its news locally. You are free to store whatever articles you want, and pass any others you want. The point of all this is to decide in a democratic manner what groups on a netwide scale will be kept, added, and so forth. This way, groups like net.internat will get removed by consensus, rather than by force. (Same for net.flame. I believe under my propsed scheme net.flame would have been removed a long time before it actually was.) > I tell my management this, and they say "off the net". Of course, that isn't what > I would do. What I would probably do is cut the groups anyway, which results > in an even worse situation that we currently have. Those "downstream" sites > still get net.philosophy. You are correct that the sites that are willing > to carry the groups should be allowed to continue to do so even if I drop > them. But if they do, they shouldn't call the group net.something. They should > be calling it co.philosophy, because that's what it effectively is there > (unless someone has started a back door feed for those groups, which I doubt). Two points: (1) You are assuming that a site downstream from you won't pick up on a group you've dropped, which is unfair to that site. (Example: ihnp4 was still carrying net.flame for a while after the backbone stopped carrying it. Other sites could have picked it up from there, or wherever it was going, whichever is cheaper/faster ...) (2) You seem to think the whole net will vote against the backbone all the time. I don't think this is true. In addition, the backbone won't all vote the same way (again, net.internat). > The *FACT* is that the backbone sites WILL decide what net.* groups will > exist whatever votes are taken. You cannot tell us what we have to pay for. > And, equally true, I can't tell YOU what NOT to pay for. Any vote taken > that doesn't have the approval of the backbone sites is a joke. Or at least, > it isn't a NET group. Do I sound like I am telling someone how to spend their money? I don't believe so. All I'm saying is, let's do things in an organized, democratic way. > > I guess what I am tryng to say is that fair is fair. What goes on in > > USENET should not be decided by a select few, it should be decided in > > a democratic manner. > > Wrong. It is and will be decided by those who bear the brunt of the cost. > No amount of voting will reinstate net.flame, net.bizzare or net.religion > on my machine, and since we pay most of the cost of transporting the news > into Colorado, we effectively "vote" for all of those sites too, like it > or not (in case you get the wrong idea, I'm not too thrilled about having > to cut people off from news they want, but I'm constrained by budgets just > like any other Gramm-Rudman site). No one's asked you to put those groups back on your machine (how many times do I have to say this?). And since every site that is on the net bears some percentage of the cost of running the net, every site should have that percentage of a vote in how the net is run. Period. That's democracy. > > There should be some agreement among those who > > participate in USENET that yes, you will have to play by the rules, or > > else you have to get out of the game. > > I agree, except that what you mean by "the rules" and what I mean by that > are different. We pay for it. You get what WE pay for (of course, if you > want to pay for it yourself....) Well, judging from my map data, I don't get news from you (relief, because I'm sure I have riled you up enough to cut my feed off :-). The rules include, but are not limited to, how much a site pays for news (and for distributing it). For example, netetiquette. Supposing someone on a backbone sites constantly violates netetiquette. (no spelling flames please) Does the fact that they are on a backbone paying for everything give them the right to spew their excrement all over the network? > > (I know no such agreement > > exists now, but in the future, failure to comply with the by-laws of > > the net should be met with the possible suspension and/or removal of a > > site from the net.) > > Oh? And what happens to the sites downstream from us if you decide to > remove us from the net? Are you SURE that's the way you want to proceed? I suppose it is better to let those who have the money get away with all kinds of sh*t, because they are paying for it. Sounds like a real good way to run a network. The net will last such a LONG time too, because everyone will continue to put up with the crap those who have the money dish out (but THEY control everything, so we have to do what they say ...) > > I wonder, for those > > who favor a backbone-run network, do you realize the danger inherent > > in dictatorship? > > I sure do. I hear you wanting to tell us how we have to spend our money. > *THAT* sounds like dictatorship. This is the last time I'm going to say it. No one's telling you how to spend your money. *sigh* Somehow, I don't believe I have gotten my point across. Even if I have, to some of you, anyone on the backbone who insists that *they* know what is best for the rest of the network, will continue to do things in a high-handed manner. At any rate, let me just say this: I do not think it is unreasonable to incorporate voting as a standard procedure for making netwide decisions, like if a group is to be created or removed. I do think it is unreasonable for a few individuals to make that decision for the rest of the net (where a few individuals does not necessarily equal the entire complement of the USENET backbone). To illustrate a few last examples, when Henry Spencer refused to pass certain groups, I had no complaint -- in fact, I would have probably done the same. However, it is not the same when Gene Spafford rmgrouped net.bizarre and net.internat. He clearly took matters into his own hands. (For the record, I don't disagree with why net.bizarre was rmgrouped, I just disagree with the manner in which it was rmgrouped.) My voting scheme is set up mainly to prevent those sorts of actions. It does not presume to dictate the actions a site, or group of sites, take locally (like when net.flame wasn't carried anymore, although I think it was a pretty sneaky way for the backbone to get their way, sort of like someone picking up their marbles and going home leaving the other kids with nothing to play with, I still can't object to it because, collectively or no, it was a decision carried out individually). In general, all I'm trying to do is protect those sites who actually care about doing things in a fair manner from some twit who, for laughs, sets themself up as a USENET funder, and proceeds to create and delete groups at whim, because they hold the purse strings. (Extreme example, but I think anyone who understands what I am really trying to say will get my point.) Sorry for the length, I was pretty steamed when I saw Greg Woods' response to me -- I hope I was able to communicate my thoughts adequately. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, gatech, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@eddie.mit.edu
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/10/86)
In article <3326@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >o No new group is created unless the net can agree on another group to > get rid of with a rmgroup. I think that there are MORE than enough > groups on the net, but most of them are or little to no value. > Among other things, this will guarantee that the people wanting > the new group are serious (do we need net.foobar MORE than we need > net.wobegon?) and will help clean up the naming space and make it > more efficient and useful. What is wrong with lots and lots of newsgroups? Lots and lots of articles, yes, but what is so wrong with lots and lots of newsgroups? You open the door here for some really nasty things to happen. I am sure that I could find a lot of people who think that net.religion should be removed because it has no value. But the thing to do is to let them not read it, and, if they are worried about costs, not recieve it. The thing *not* to do is to give them the power and authority to get rid of net.religion for *everybody* -- even those who want it and are willing to pay for it. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/10/86)
> In article <1984@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP writes: > > o Rather than one vote per site, make it one vote per feed, with votes being > > made by the SA. This gives the sites that are funding the net, the > > backbones, the added priviledge of helping to decide where the money > > they are spending on this thing is used. I know this is nitpicky, but I did not write that. Once again I would like to ask people who are using software that automatically includes parts of articles to check that they are not attributing text which was merely quoted in a subsequent article to the wrong author. This is very annoying. In a critical case you could even be sued for libel by attributing to someone comments which they did not make. In this case, I *quoted* that text in my article. The original was, I believe (take that as a disclaimer) written by Greg Skinner. (Note that here I do not state that as though it were a fact, contrary to the above quote from "my" article). --Greg
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (03/11/86)
In article <1195@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes: >My model of how the USENET voting procedure would run is similar to >that of the electoral college. Each site gets to vote based upon how >many feeds they have, whether news developers are at that site, or >news moderators, or uucp map keepers, or what have you. These factors >will have to be weighted of course. The site vote is cast in the >person of the news administrator. > >There are those who seem to have a problem with this scheme. I wonder >why this is so. Well, my problem with this kind of idea is only that net administrators are not elected themselves. My net.admin is a reasonable person, but there can be no reasonable expectation that this will be true everywhere, or even most places. If some jerkface runs my site and only puts in votes as *s/he* wants things run, without caring what anyone else wants, and I don't have the sort of pull around my site to do anything about it, what happens? Your analogy with the Electoral College falls down at the selection of the electors. I also don't have any way to know how my sa is voting. Maybe s/he is telling me that our site voted *for* a group when we really voted *against* because s/he personally opposes it. At the least, each sites vote should be *posted*. Of course, then when most people at a site are in favor of, say, net.jokes, there can be side effects. After all, some manager may not care if they get net.jokes, but to be out in public on the net saying so might not be very politic, so maybe that won't work either. Secret ballot is part of democary, too. How would you resolve this dilemma? >I guess what I am tryng to say is that fair is fair. What goes on in >USENET should not be decided by a select few, it should be decided in >a democratic manner. Yeah, exactly. Ken Arnold
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/11/86)
> I think that qualifies me to speak on this > subject (which I have spoken before, in fact in argument with this > same person, who hasn't changed from his last stance, by the way) I will grant you are more experienced than I thought, but did you face the kind of tight budgets I have to work with? And as far as my position not changing, so what? Neither has yours. > I agree -- it is an accounting nightmare. Then how do we implement it? We can't even get sites to upgrade as it is, even if someone DOES find a way to implement it. > Before you go on, note that my scheme *in no way* dictates how a host > handles its news locally. You are free to store whatever articles you > want, and pass any others you want. True. And that power, like it or not, also enables me to decide what groups the rest of non-AT&T Colorado will receive on their machines, at least until someone else expresses the willingness to pay the phone charges for the ones for which we won't. So far, no takers. It isn't that I *want* to have this power; I certainly don't want to be accused of censorship. My decisions have been and will continue to be based solely on fiscal factors (as well as what the boss tells me to do). If the entire backbone gets together on such a decision, then it will affect the entire net, whatever votes are taken. True, you could set up an alternate backbone, but that would just move the power into the hands of a *different* "select group". > The point of all this is to > decide in a democratic manner what groups on a netwide scale will be > kept, added, and so forth. There is nothing wrong with taking polls. I suspect that most of the time I will be willing to go along with what the net wants too, unless it contradicts the boss or the budget. > This way, groups like net.internat will > get removed by consensus, rather than by force. Net.internat was not created by consensus, either, so therefore it is a poor example to bring into this. > (Same for net.flame. > I believe under my propsed scheme net.flame would have been removed a > long time before it actually was.) This is debatable. How long would it have taken to get through the "accounting nightmare"? But this is indeed a better example and I will come back to it. > Two points: (1) You are assuming that a site downstream from you > won't pick up on a group you've dropped, which is unfair to that site. So far, the empirical evidence bears out that assumption. They are, of course, free to pick up the dropped group. In fact, many of them still carry the dropped groups. They are still called net.whatever despite the fact that no articles from out of Colorado get posted there, and nothing posted there gets out of Colorado. I think they should be renamed to co.whatever on those sites until such time as there is someone willing to pay the cost of making it net.whatever again. So far, no takers. > (Example: ihnp4 was still carrying net.flame for a while after the > backbone stopped carrying it. Other sites could have picked it up > from there Only if ihnp4 allows them to do so. > (2) You seem to think the whole net will vote against the backbone all > the time. WHAT?? Where did you get that idea? I do claim that it CAN happen that way, and when it does the backbone will win regardless of how many votes are cast against it. In that case, what's the point of wasting the time to take a vote? Back to our favorite example again, net.flame. Since the backbone decided to drop it, why bother taking a vote, since it is dropped anyway regardless of how the vote turns out? Again, you could set up an alternate backbone, but if you do you just transfer the same power to the new backbone instead of the old. > Do I sound like I am telling someone how to spend their money? Potentially, yes, when the net vote goes against our management and fiscal policies. > No one's asked you to put those groups back on your machine True, not *this* time. My point is, what if they did? I still wouldn't. > Well, judging from my map data, I don't get news from you (relief, > because I'm sure I have riled you up enough to cut my feed off :-). I'm glad you appended the smiley face there, because I want to make it absolutely clear that I would *never* cut off a feed solely because of personal dislike for someone there, and besides, I'm not that easily "riled". Disagreement does not HAVE to be heated. > Does the fact that they > are on a backbone paying for everything give them the right to spew > their excrement all over the network? No, it sure doesn't, but a netwide vote isn't going to get rid of this person unless the rest of the backbone cooperates, so again, why bother taking a netwide vote? Just petition the backbone to cut them off. Not only is it faster, and less of a load on the net, it's the only thing that would actually work. > I suppose it is better to let those who have the money get away with > all kinds of sh*t, because they are paying for it. Sounds like a real > good way to run a network. Face it, it's the ONLY realistic way to run a network where a small proportion of the sites pay the vast majority of the cost. > Somehow, I don't believe I have gotten my point across. Even if I > have, to some of you, anyone on the backbone who insists that *they* > know what is best for the rest of the network, will continue to do > things in a high-handed manner. I don't say what's best for the network, I say what's best for MY machine, and those who "freeload" off us are stuck with it. Expand this to the entire backbone, and you come up with my main point: since we pay the cost, you're stuck with us and our decisions, like it or not. Considering how much power we actually have, I think it a very positive thing that there hasn't been MORE "censorship" and "high-handed" decisions. > At any rate, let me just say this: I > do not think it is unreasonable to incorporate voting as a standard > procedure for making netwide decisions, like if a group is to be > created or removed. ...and I think it is unworkable. > I do think it is unreasonable for a few individuals > to make that decision for the rest of the net True. And it's also unreasonable for a few sites to pay for the rest of the net, but that's the way it is, and as long as it *is* that way, it ain't a democracy. > However, it is not the same when Gene > Spafford rmgrouped net.bizarre and net.internat. He clearly took > matters into his own hands. (For the record, I don't disagree with > why net.bizarre was rmgrouped, I just disagree with the manner in > which it was rmgrouped.) It was rmgrouped the same way it was created. Since it should never have been created in the first place, I had no objection to it's removal. I don't think Spaf "took matters into his own hands" any more than the persons who illegally created these groups in the first place. How come I don't hear you griping about *that*? Simple. Because Spaf is a backbone administrator, he is an easy target. I'll bet you don't even *know* who created those groups out of procedure in the first place. I'm sure *I've* forgotten, because they never had to take the public flak for it that Spaf did for their removal. > My voting scheme is set up mainly to > prevent those sorts of actions. It creates the alternative of having net.foo everywhere but the backbone, if the backbone doesn't want to carry it. All these local pockets of a so-called "net" group. If you advocate the rest of the net going against decisions made by the backbone, even in a single case, then this is what you are advocating. Think about it. > It does not presume to dictate the > actions a site, or group of sites, take locally (like when net.flame > wasn't carried anymore, although I think it was a pretty sneaky way for > the backbone to get their way, sort of like someone picking up their > marbles and going home leaving the other kids with nothing to play with The other kids can bloody well go out and buy their own marbles. No one is stopping them. > In general, all I'm trying to do > is protect those sites who actually care about doing things in a fair > manner from some twit who, for laughs, sets themself up as a USENET > funder, and proceeds to create and delete groups at whim, because they > hold the purse strings. (Extreme example, but I think anyone who > understands what I am really trying to say will get my point.) You are right, this IS an extreme example and that is exactly the point. I hope you aren't referring to any actual persons here. If someone on the backbone started behaving like this I'm sure the rest of the backbone would pull the plug on him in short order. > Sorry for the length, I was pretty steamed when I saw Greg Woods' > response to me Getting steamed because someone disagrees is not going to get us anywhere. Particularly about something like this, we need to all keep our heads and not get into a flame battle. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (03/11/86)
> What is wrong with lots and lots of newsgroups? Lots and lots of articles, > yes, but what is so wrong with lots and lots of newsgroups? ... > -- > Laura Creighton > ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura > toad@lll-crg.arpa What is wrong is that there are tables in the news software that must grow to accomodate additional newsgroups. It won't take much growth in these tables to inflate the software to the point where it will no longer fit on a 16-bit system. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street UUCP: {harvard,cbosgd}!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/11/86)
It seems to this observer (being quite new to the net...10 days today) that
there is some confusion in this discussion of network decision processes. In
particular, I see the concept of "democracy" being raised repeatedly. As *I*
understand the network, it is an ad-hoc network, voluntarily supported by the
participating sites. There is no formal structure or organization controlling
the network, or access to it.
I see no mention or promise, implicit or explicit, of "democratic process" in
this description of the network. I see no reason for anyone to assume that
they have any right whatever to dictate, either by individual action, or through
supposedly "democratic" process, how, to what extent, when, or why any network
site, backbone ot otherwise, is going to participate in the network.
These so-called backbone sites have, for whatever reasons, chosen to carry
much of the burden of traffic in the network. While having such backbone
sites obviously improves the efficiency of the network, it also considerably
complicates the political management of the network. The network, as a
community, has apparently chosen to accept these complications as a reasonable
trade-off for impoved efficiency. The backbone sites have apparently chosen
to accept the cost and trouble of providing such service.
How one can interpet an agreement, tacit or otherwise, to accept the cost of
providing efficient communication services at no charge, as also implying that
the provider agrees to comply with the wishes or demands of those receiving the
service, is beyond me.
This is *NOT* a democracy here. It is a cooperative. As such, unless and
until *ALL* participating parties agree upon a formal structure for decision
making, it seems obvious that those who make decisions have every right to do
so, without justifying them, and without permission from others.
Now, this is not to say that I would like to see the administrators of the
backbone sites become involved in powerplays. So far, while I might not agree
with some of the decisions I have seen, I haven't seen any that I could
classify as malicious, or excessively arbitrary (now, to placate those who
would argue the semantics of the words "arbitrary", let us recall that there
is no requirement, implied or otherwise, that any site justify their actions.
Therefore, while the decision may appear to be arbitrary from the point of
view of other sites, there may well be very sound reasons for these decisions.
Unless you are privy to the decision making policies of the sites making the
decisions, you are not qualified to judge the degree to which these decisions
are or are not arbitrary). It seems to me that the backbone sites, (as well
as any other site) have the right to carry or not carry whatever traffic suits
them. No one else has any right to cry foul.
If a particular backbone (or other) site consistently makes decisions which
upset and/or offend a sufficient number of sites, then the problem will reduce
itself at that time when those sites remove that site from the traffic
distribution lines. When a large enough number of sites have done so, a site
which has been so excised will no longer have any significant effect upon the
net.
In essence, I believe that the adminstrators of the backbone sites have every
right to decide what newsgroups they will and will not pass, without discussion,
without permission, and without recrimination. That most (or all) of these
adminstrators actually attempt to discuss such issues prior to decision making,
and request feedback speaks highly of them, and highly of the network as a
whole.
It is not necessarily true that all sites carry some percentage of the cost
of operating the network. My site bears no cost at all. I am most grateful
for the generosity of the administrator of my feedsite, and for the generosity
of all the sites that carry my traffic, in both directions. While I may be
unhappy at the loss (or gain) a particular newsgroup, I remain sufficiently
happy with what I *DO* receive that I am not going to start screaming.
This doesn't mean to imply that the network oughtn't to complain. Certainly,
if anyone feels that the decisions made by a site are detrimental to the
network, they ought to express these concerns. But to cry foul, to accuse the
backbone administrators of "dictatorship" is unfair, untrue and unreasonable.
Persuade if you can. Suggest reconsideration. Bemaon your loss. But do not
recriminate, and do not wax vitriolic. Such behaviour can have only one result:
the destruction of USENET as a viable community.
(for the record, I am a fairly rabid liberal/humanist, and react *VERY* strongly
when I feel that my rights and/or freedoms are threatened. I do not tend to
defend the status quo, and seldom defend the establishment (*ANY*
establishment) Just go read my postings in net.politics, to see what I mean)
I suggest that the bickering cease, and that we continue to operate as the
community we are. All of us will be better served, and have a more peaceful
and copacetic existence.
End of comments by upstart newcomer. All flamers referred to /dev/null.
--
====================================
Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/12/86)
Allow me to get 2 cents worth in here. It sounds to me as if the appeals to democracy are an attempt to find a moral justification for doing what you want to do. Ditto with the complicated voting stuff. Stop looking. Case in point. Greg Woods at Hao stopped accepting a lot of newsgroups. So the people in Colorado lose. If Greg decided which groups to stop receiving based on his own personal preference and didn't consider thiers, then those people have a legitimite gripe with Greg. If the Colorado community want protest and say ``nuke net.singles, keep net.religion'' then they can do so. BUT NOBODY ELSE HAS A CASE AGAINST GREG. HAO is BROKE. This is the problem. If you don't like this, send money to Greg Woods -- I am *sure* that he will take it. Greg has no moral obligation to spend money that he doesn't have, even though other people would like him to. Setting up complicated notions of fairness to manipulate Greg into paying money that he doesn't have *won't* *work*. On the other hand, there are those who would like to have their cake and eat it too. That is to say -- Greg wouldn't have a problem if there were no net.religion or net.politics. (I happen to disagree with this argument, but no matter). So we get people to vote on killing them either ``because we have too many newsgroups, and net.arch.compilers is soo much a better newsgroup, and we couldn't simply *add* one...'' or ``because the cost of traffic is too much''. But these arguments for fairness are bogus -- you penalise the people who *are* willing to pay because some other sites aren't. What should happen is that every site should receive as much news as they are willing to pay for, in whatever newsgroups they choose to accept. And no appeals are necessary -- since it is, after all, their money. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/12/86)
> > It seems to this observer (being quite new to the net...10 days today) that > there is some confusion in this discussion of network decision processes. In > particular, I see the concept of "democracy" being raised repeatedly. As *I* > understand the network, it is an ad-hoc network, voluntarily supported by the > participating sites. There is no formal structure or organization controlling > the network, or access to it. > > I see no mention or promise, implicit or explicit, of "democratic process" in > this description of the network... I am not going to quote the entire article, although I would like to. I'd just like to thank this author for expressing essentially my viewpoint (and maybe that of other site administrators) in better words than I myself could write, and coming from a place where he can't be accused of bias in my favor. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; no one left to place or take the blame; Will we leave this place an empty stone, or a shining ball of earth, we can call our home"
gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) (03/12/86)
First off, I would like to state for the record that I am not trying
to attack Spaf or anyone else for cleaning up the net. Like I said in
my previous article, I felt that *action* of rmgrouping net.internat
was the proper thing to do, since it was not created according to the
rules. It is the *method* I disagreed with -- he didn't consult the
rest of the net about it (not even in net.news.group), he just
rmgrouped it. If the rules had been upheld from the beginning
net.internat wouldn't have been created, but rmgrouping it didn't help
much either (as evidenced by the many sites, including backbones who
decided to carry it, and still do). Two wrongs don't make a right.
From the mail I've recieved so far, and judging from past experiences,
I've decided that democratic procedure won't work for USENET, at least
not until either (1) a far cheaper transport mechanism is used, or (2)
all the sites share the cost of USENET (like in Europe). Until, then,
sadly to say, the backbone will have the final word, because they have
the power to discontinue whatever groups they wish.
I can understand the necessity of cutting back certain groups for
fiscal reasons. I am somewhat concerned, though, that personal
preferences may get in the way of sound economic judgment (see recent
discussion on rmgrouping net.jokes as example). What I don't want to
see is what Thomas Cox once mentioned -- "power politics", where
individuals with the power make decisions which are beneficial to
their personal tastes, as opposed to their space requirements, phone
bills, etc. This goes for newsgroup creation also -- an established
need should be made for a group before it can become a net group, and
no individuals should be permitted to exceed that constraint and
"mandate" the creation of a group.
I'll probably leave this discussion for a while, and see what others
have to say. I'll carry on discussions about how (in theory) a voting
scheme could be worked in private mail, and summarize the results. I
encourage others to post their ideas -- the idea is not for anyone to
win, but for the whole net to win.
Again, I mean no offense to anyone in particular -- I'm just trying in
ways I know how to improve the net. I think those of you who work the
software, the other moderators, those who write the documentation, are
doing a good job -- let's not become divided over some issues but work
cooperatively to improve the net.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, gatech, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@eddie.mit.edugam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (03/13/86)
I agree with Ken. I don't think a vote of ONLY Site or Netnews
Administrators should be the deciding factor.
I am alledgedly the Netnews Administrator here. Recently Mark
Horton asked Adminstrators about what the readership of
mac articles was on their systems. (net.sources.mac is a
touchy subject for me). I told him that while I don't like them
and think they should be removed, there were several enthusiastic
Mac owners here that would kill me if I were to delete them.
(I sent him the count of net.*.mac readers here).
Frankly, though, I'm *glad* the decision wasn't just up to me. I've
made my opinion on the matter clear (well, to Mike Smith, anyway ...)
but I go by "rule by the People" here, and I feel that I have been
outvoted.
I agree that decisions on newsgroup creation/deletion should
be up to the readers. You might want to weigh votes at
backbone sites heavier (this reflects the reality of their
influence on the network), but in any case the vote of the People
is the Voice of Usenet! (<-- the motto is public domain)
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
"Life's a bitch and then you die."woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/14/86)
> my previous article, I felt that *action* of rmgrouping net.internat > was the proper thing to do I must confess that I did NOT get this impression at all from your postings and mail. > It is the *method* I disagreed with In practice, how WAS he supposed to do it? Submitting it to the net for a vote is tantamount to admitting it's existence; it's like giving in to terrorism: it would only encourage MORE net.terrorism. > Two wrongs don't make a right. No, but three lefts do! :-) > I've decided that democratic procedure won't work for USENET, at least > not until either (1) a far cheaper transport mechanism is used, or (2) > all the sites share the cost of USENET (like in Europe). This has been my only objection all along. I have no desire to be a dictator. > I am somewhat concerned, though, that personal > preferences may get in the way of sound economic judgment I agree. It will be important for the non-backbone users to point out when they feel an abuse has occurred/is occurring. > individuals with the power make decisions which are beneficial to > their personal tastes, as opposed to their space requirements, phone > bills, etc. I agree again. I hope no insinuations are being made that this has already been done. > This goes for newsgroup creation also -- an established > need should be made for a group before it can become a net group I'm glad we agree on this, but the next question is: what do we do if someone DOES create a group clearly not in accordance with the established procedure? Do we have to then submit it to the net and PROVE that it was created out of procedure, while the 'terrorists' continue to post to it in the meantime, thus further entrenching the 'illegal' group into the fabric of the net? Where do we draw the line? > Again, I mean no offense to anyone in particular -- I'm just trying in > ways I know how to improve the net. Understood. One of the good things about this net is that everyone can express their viewpoint, no matter how 'unpopular'. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; no one left to place or take the blame; Will we leave this place an empty stone, or a shining ball of earth, we can call our home"
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/14/86)
> (net.sources.mac is a > touchy subject for me). I told him that while I don't like them > and think they should be removed, there were several enthusiastic > Mac owners here that would kill me if I were to delete them. > (I sent him the count of net.*.mac readers here). > > Frankly, though, I'm *glad* the decision wasn't just up to me. But it WAS up to you, Gordon. You CHOSE to consult your users before casting your site vote. Commendable of you, but that's exactly what is meant by a site vote! A truly competent site administrator is capable of casting a site vote which differs from his own personal preferences if it truly reflects the users/management at that site. I envy you that you are actually able to vote for the netnews readers' interests. I end up voting with the administrators' interestes, tempered as much as possible by my own personal persuasions (which, I'd like to think, reflect the occasional netnews readers' here interest for generic continuation of netnews capability). --Greg
rec@mplvax.ARPA (Richard Currier) (03/14/86)
In article <2910@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: > >I am alledgedly the Netnews Administrator here. Recently Mark >Horton asked Adminstrators about what the readership of >mac articles was on their systems. (net.sources.mac is a >touchy subject for me). I told him that while I don't like them >and think they should be removed, there were several enthusiastic >Mac owners here that would kill me if I were to delete them. Have you asked those at your site why they are interested in net.sources.mac? My site is in the process of investigating the integration of the Macintosh into the UNIX environment, primarily as an intelligent, layering/windowing user interface. The sources we have obtained from this group have been invaluable to this effort. This work is a direct result of managements interest in providing effective productivity tools for their engineering staff. If my anyone were to arbitrarily remove the Mac groups from our site without first consulting those who use the system to get their work done he would be out on the street before we could get our hands on him. Better check it out with your bosses. -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
jay@ethos.UUCP (Jay Denebeim) (03/16/86)
In article <1256@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes: >From the mail I've recieved so far, and judging from past experiences, >I've decided that democratic procedure won't work for USENET, at least >not until either (1) a far cheaper transport mechanism is used, or (2) >all the sites share the cost of USENET (like in Europe). Until, then, >sadly to say, the backbone will have the final word, because they have >the power to discontinue whatever groups they wish. What about using PC Pursuit for some of the network costs? Admittedly, I'm a new user, and am only familiar with micros, but it sounds like a good idea to me. -- Jay Denebeim "One world, one egg, one basket." {seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!ethos!jay Deep Thought, ZNode #42 300/1200/2400 919-471-6436
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/18/86)
In article <451@ethos.UUCP>, jay@ethos.UUCP writes: > > What about using PC Pursuit for some of the network costs? Admittedly, > I'm a new user, and am only familiar with micros, but it sounds like a good > idea to me. > Jay Denebeim "One world, one egg, one basket." PC Persuit is specifically limited to privte use. If your phone isn't a residential number, they won't carry you. (just try to get a residential number in a business location). If you find a way to legally convince them, let us *ALL* know about it. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (03/18/86)
Sorry, but it IS available to businesses. It is currently saving me about $700 per month on my phone bill. I KNOW GTE is aware that we are a business, since I crashed their DC area system when they were first bringing it up (The phone conversation was funny. What kind of PC are you using? Vax-11/780. Long pause. What are you doing with it? Transferring about 4 megabytes/night of mail. Another pause.) Anyway, we ended up talking for about an hour. It seems that seismo is their biggest user by a large amount. They claim that their system should be able to handle the traffic and that they did not care that we were "commercial". He did say that they might go to a different charging scale for businesses. Hobbyists pay $25/month usage independant. Businesses pat $1/hour with a $25/month minimum. It's a tremendous bargain either way. If you are in one of their 12 cities local calling area (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, LA, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, or Washington DC) you can call all of the following uucp Sites (This is the list seismo calls regularly, there are lots more): drillsys, dual, gatech, hao, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, mit-erl, presby, rlgvax, scgvaxd, seismo, smu, sun, turtlevax, umcp-cs, usenix, vortex They claim to be adding San Diego, Portland and Seattle "soon". They are considering adding the nothern New Jersey area, which would save me another $500/month. ---rick
jay@ethos.UUCP (Jay Denebeim) (03/20/86)
In article <87@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > PC Persuit is specifically limited to privte use. If your phone isn't >a residential number, they won't carry you. (just try to get a residential >number in a business location). If you find a way to legally convince them, >let us *ALL* know about it. What about UNIX systems at people's houses? That's what I'm writing this from. Yes, I know a unix workstation doesn't have the capacity to hold alot of the traffic. It seems like secondary feeds could be implemented with this sort of site though. -- Jay Denebeim "One world, one egg, one basket." {seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!ethos!jay Deep Thought, ZNode #42 300/1200/2400 919-471-6436
lorne@uokvax.UUCP (03/24/86)
/* Written 4:12 pm Mar 17, 1986 by mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.news.group */ In article <451@ethos.UUCP>, jay@ethos.UUCP writes: > > What about using PC Pursuit for some of the network costs? Admittedly, > I'm a new user, and am only familiar with micros, but it sounds like a good > idea to me. > Jay Denebeim "One world, one egg, one basket." PC Persuit is specifically limited to privte use. If your phone isn't a residential number, they won't carry you. (just try to get a residential number in a business location). If you find a way to legally convince them, let us *ALL* know about it. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *) /* End of text from uokvax.UUCP:net.news.group */