tierney@fortune.UUCP (Charles Tierney) (10/24/85)
I read both Gene Spafford's and Mike Banahan's posting about net.internat. As a news administrator, I agree with Gene. We cannot allow people to just create news groups when they feel like it. However, I *strongly* believe a newsgroup dealing with issues of internationalization IS NECESSARY. Here at Fortune, we have internationalized most of our product line. And we have an ongoing commitment to continue our international development. I think many more companies and individuals will want to follow the path to internationalization. So, we must reform the group. How? I am not quite sure, but as a suggestion, net.unix.internat OR net.unix.intl seem logical name choices. Let's start some discussion in net.news.group. Perhaps we can begin a vote by next week. C'mon people! This is the future. America does not exist in a void, and not everybody speaks English! --------------------------------------- Charles Tierney Fortune Systems fortune!forclt!charlie
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/25/85)
I don't think the question of whether net.internat is necessary is
relevant to the discussion (though I tend to think it is necessary.) I
do think the rmgroup on net.internat was done without thought, and with
a certain amount of dictatorial short-sightedness.
There seems to be the myth lying around that all newsgroups have gone
through some form of democratic voting process to be created. This
isn't the case. Historically, newsgroups have been *legitimately* been
created by mandate of usenix or some subgroup of usenix withough having
been subjected to a network vote. If anyone decided, it was a few people
at a small meeting.
net.internat was created by mandate of EUNET. I have no problem with this,
and I think declaring it an illegal group is an exceptionally parochial thing
to do. Perhaps there should have been private discussion as to the name
of net.internet among the netgods, but the group itself has sufficient
legitimacy by virtue of EUNET sponsorship to bypass the voting procedure.
I also refuse to honor the rmgroup. Were I on EUNET I would by highly
offended by Spaf's actions.
--
Byron Howes
System Manager -- NCECS
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchhes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (10/26/85)
> net.internat was created by mandate of EUNET. I have no problem with this, > and I think declaring it an illegal group is an exceptionally parochial thing > to do. Perhaps there should have been private discussion as to the name > of net.internet among the netgods, but the group itself has sufficient > legitimacy by virtue of EUNET sponsorship to bypass the voting procedure. > > Byron Howes > ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch This type of creation sounds legitimate to me. Is it possible to "officially" (re)consider it now, and then bless it? It is fruitless to argue the propriety of its original creation and rmgrouping - however I do think the choice of an appropriate name is important (if it is possible.) With all the discussion about keywords and changing group names, the point has been made that the group name should be indicative of the theme. To me, "net.internat" doesn't suggest anything about unix. --henry schaffer
fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) (10/27/85)
In article <629@ecsvax.UUCP> bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: > > There seems to be the myth lying around that all newsgroups have gone > through some form of democratic voting process to be created. This > isn't the case. Historically, newsgroups have been *legitimately* been > created by mandate of usenix or some subgroup of usenix withough having > been subjected to a network vote. If anyone decided, it was a few people > at a small meeting. This is absolutely, uncategorically false. Cite an example, if you can. > net.internat was created by mandate of EUNET. I have no problem with this, > and I think declaring it an illegal group is an exceptionally parochial thing > to do. Perhaps there should have been private discussion as to the name > of net.internet among the netgods, but the group itself has sufficient > legitimacy by virtue of EUNET sponsorship to bypass the voting procedure. No newsgroup creation or deletion should be excepted from the usual consensus building procedure. > I also refuse to honor the rmgroup. Were I on EUNET I would by highly > offended by Spaf's actions. You should be offended by the high handed manner in which the EUUG presumes to dictate to the USENET. USENIX has never done so. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/28/85)
In article <10820@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: >In article <629@ecsvax.UUCP> bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: >> >> There seems to be the myth lying around that all newsgroups have gone >> through some form of democratic voting process to be created. This >> isn't the case. Historically, newsgroups have been *legitimately* been >> created by mandate of usenix or some subgroup of usenix withough having >> been subjected to a network vote. If anyone decided, it was a few people >> at a small meeting. > >This is absolutely, uncategorically false. Cite an example, if you can. At the risk of repeating myself, I cite the series of mod. groups created about a year ago in parallel with some 'uncontrolled' net. groups. I cite the series of mod. groups just recently created. I cite net.announce and net.announce.newusers. I cite mod.map. Need I go on? Ok. We got net.jokes.d. Anyone remember ugh.jokes? How about mod.ber? The point is the very structure of usenet was decided upon by caveat. It is only some recent revisionist history that declares it to be the product of democracy in action. -- Byron Howes System Manager -- NCECS ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
ncx@cheviot.uucp (Lindsay F. Marshall) (10/28/85)
In article <10820@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: > >This is absolutely, uncategorically false. Cite an example, if you can. > fa.* -> mod.completely.ridiculous.long-names (which never saw an votes on, but of course not every article actually makes it out of the US) and werent some of the stargate (whatever that is) groups started at BOF sessions??? > >No newsgroup creation or deletion should be excepted from the usual >consensus building procedure. > Wait a second... whose consensus???? There WAS a consensus reached by a group of people, they just didnt happen to waste money posting it to the net.If a consensus is reached at an official user group meeting (NOT the Auchtermuchty UN*X hackers society sort of group) how can it be different from doing it on the net??? The same people would have voted, the same result would have pertained and somebody would have done a create group. Yes, but who?????? One of the netlords of course, who werent at the meeting........ How would it be if I told you that the discussion HAD taken place, but only with a non-US distribution (yes that would be insular, but consider it) - yes you would have a grouse when you got the create group message. OK then why does the rest of the world have to put up with showers of create group messages for groups that dont appear outside the US and are of no interest to us and for which we have seen almost no discussion. When the "usual procedure" starts to take into account such things as distributions etc. then the net will start to look a lot healthier tahn it does at the moment. > >You should be offended by the high handed manner in which the EUUG presumes >to dictate to the USENET. USENIX has never done so. > Come off it! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lindsay F. Marshall, Computing Lab., U of Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, UK ARPA : lindsay%cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa JANET : lindsay@uk.ac.newcastle.cheviot UUCP : <UK>!ukc!cheviot!lindsay -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/28/85)
> There seems to be the myth lying around that all newsgroups have gone > through some form of democratic voting process to be created. I don't think that is true. In fact, I remember that net.suicide was created as a joke during a debate on motorcycle helmets, so that those who wanted to ride without helmets would have someplace to talk. :-) Net.suicide still exists, and no one is suggesting its removal at this time. In the old days, before exponential growth of phone bills, we could get away with this. But no more. No one said every existing group was created according to the present rules. All we are saying is that any NEW groups must be created according to the current rules. The net is now too big to be a total anarchy. > net.internat was created by mandate of EUNET. I have no problem with this, > and I think declaring it an illegal group is an exceptionally parochial thing > to do. What does parochialism have to do with it? That is, as has been stated MANY times now, an irrelevant issue. The ONLY objection to the group is that its creator did not follow accepted procedure for creating NETWIDE groups. > Perhaps there should have been private discussion as to the name > of net.internet among the netgods, but the group itself has sufficient > legitimacy by virtue of EUNET sponsorship to bypass the voting procedure. This is a debatable issue. I do not agree. The way I interpret the newsgroup creation rules is that you must first have a DEMONSTRATED VOLUME of postings before proposing new groups. Maybe that should be changed, I don't know. But the way things are CURRENTLY set up, neither EUUG nor USENIX can mandate the creation of new groups. > I also refuse to honor the rmgroup. That is, of course, your right as a net site. However, if the backbone does honor the rmgroup, it won't be much of a netwide group. > Were I on EUNET I would by highly offended by Spaf's actions. Only if you presume that his motivation was due to the origin of the create message or the content of the group. As I understand it, these things have NOTHING to do with it. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/30/85)
In article <1828@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >...All we are saying is that any NEW groups >must be created according to the current rules. The net is now too big >to be a total anarchy. Really? Then how come all these new 'mod' groups (for which I had no corresponding 'fa.' groups just appeared on my machine?) Just when did these 'rules' come to be? Last month? Yesterday? It has *always* been possible and necessary to create groups by caveat. Selective memory is certainly a woderful thing! > What does parochialism have to do with it? That is, as has been stated >MANY times now, an irrelevant issue. The ONLY objection to the group is that >its creator did not follow accepted procedure for creating NETWIDE groups. The parochialism is in not granting to EUUG the same legitimacy we confer to USENIX. If piet@mcvax put out a netwide rmgroup on one of the mod groups just recently created despite 'the rules' the flames would be enough to bring the satellite out of orbit. > This is a debatable issue. I do not agree. The way I interpret the newsgroup >creation rules is that you must first have a DEMONSTRATED VOLUME of postings >before proposing new groups. Maybe that should be changed, I don't know. >But the way things are CURRENTLY set up, neither EUUG nor USENIX can mandate >the creation of new groups. Again, this simply isn't the case. Not only history, but current events is on my side. You can scream until you are blue in the face that these are the 'rules.' The facts don't bear that out. It don't make it so... -- Byron Howes System Manager -- NCECS ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch