benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Thomas a Coxus) (11/10/85)
[]
#2: RULES ON THE NET
Dear Readers:
A little while ago I asked for opinions on the different
facets of the problems facing USENET. I am posting ideas compiled
by *concept*. If it's not marked "editor", it's not my opinion.
Today's posting addresses some of the possibilities for
USENET rules. The rules range from those re. newsgroup creation all
the way out into left field and beyond . . . you have been warned!-)
Note that current rules aren't summarized here. If someone would
do that, I'd be grateful. This is NOT an exhaustive summary of the
topic, so keep writing.
[from 'gpw':]
1) Determine rules for newsgroup creation and deletion.
This should be done by system administrators of the backbone sites
and should not, I repeat, !not! allow discussion from the end users.
Why do I take this position? I believe that if a user wants a particular
this or that they should plead their case to the admin. of their! system.
Not to the entire world!
2) Determine what is or is not acceptible volume for any news group.
3) Form 'MOD' groups to contain MASSIVE volume groups.
4) Allow for every backbone site to police the net.
5) Force better connectivity, this would have to be done by the backbones,
and I am not capable of defining this further.
Thanks
gpw
[from Eric E. Fair:]
If I really had the power to enforce my opinions on to the USENET, all
sites would be running the latest software, notesfiles sites would
vanish (or at least would be segregated on to their own network where
their software bugs would not bother us), and a much more sensible
naming structure would prevail over the newsgroup names, a structure
designed to avoid confusion, promote clarity, and germane discussions.
Unfortunately, I have no such power. So I persuade, cajole, argue, and
browbeat until I'm blue in the face...
keeper of the network news for ucbvax,
and guardian of the gateway,
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu
[from Mike Lutz:]
System Administrator News Administrator
Reader & Writer to tech groups and some smaller specialt groups
(notably net.bicycle).
What 'ritcv' is:
Small rib (we receive from the University of Rochester & redistribute
to 5 other local sites).
I agree the problems are those of raw volume. My only concern
with the newsgroup creation rules is that they are not terribly
effective in addessing the volume problem, and stifle the
creation of truly interesting, important, and entertaining
groups that we should be able to support.
I am particularly concerned about the soapbox groups that are
still around primarily for historical reasons (net.flame,
net.misc, net.religion, net.politics, net.philosophy, and a
couple others).
The net should have some way to evolve new groups, while
burying little used old groups (and developing an anti-cancer
policy to deal with groups that get out of hand).
Mike Lutz
{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl
[from John Mackin:]
Should there be rules, and should such be enforced? Well,
few things are more pointless (and often actively damaging) than a rule
that's not enforced. And I think there should probably be rules. The
net is too large for there not to be rules. They should probably be
of the form ``You get one chance, blow that and you lose your feed.''
Some asshole user at your site forges cancel messages (hi, oliveb!)---
you lose your feed.
Your site emits an inappropriate newgroup or rmgroup---
you lose your feed.
Bona fide mistakes can be tolerated. Once per site.
Who does the enforcing? All the site admins. Given a group of
sites that don't want to cooperate, fine, they can do what they
like---among themselves. The rest of the net needn't talk to
them.
Not necessarily ``power politics.'' Cooperation. The connectivity
of the net should be higher. Then there would be no ``fear and loathing
in the spinal column'' dogshit. (Not that I believe it, and I think
Gene Spafford is doing a good job, by the way.)
> 2. The Net: what does the apparant ceiling on postings mean for the future
> of the net as a social entity? [Social meaning groups of interacting
> humans.] Will the net survive as an anarchy, and can it ?
[Actually, I meant an apparant physical limit. -editor]
Ceiling on postings? *WHAT* ceiling on postings? The only ceiling I've
seen is a ceiling on *new groups*, NOT postings. And I like it!
Will/can the net survive as an anarchy? Well if it can't it won't,
so first let's try "can it?" I think it can. All it takes is less
shit on the wires. Blow away net.sources, and all those dogshit
microcomputer groups; they can get that on the Source or CompuServe;
put in that mod.sources. Note that I, unlike some, don't consider
moderation a threat to anarchy; nay, it's an asset. Look at all
the absolute abysmal trash in net.sources. We're all paying for
that! Sure, now and then there's something good. So have a mod
group. Not censorship, just a bit of intellect. We wouldn't need
it if so many of the people who post to the net weren't so god-damned
stupid. But that's the way it goes; it used to be little, now it's
big. Where before we had UNIX hackers (who I hope you will pardon me
if I consider as---by and large, mind you, I'm NOT being absolute
here---somewhat of a select group, intellect-wise), or *at least*
programmers, now it's a much bigger sample space.
I thought not. Anyway, all this "We have a right to flame" shit
isn't anarchy; I won't even dignify it with an analogy with terrorism.
It's just childish crap. Blow it away.
Whew. Now for "will [the net survive]?" Damned if I know. I hope so.
I'm a systems programmer here at Basser. I also look
after netnews. I administer news on our systems and look after the
feeds. Our site is perhaps a third of what might be called the ``Australian
Backbone'' (munnari, basser and uqcspe).
Just by the way: it doesn't cost us all that much to move data around
in Australia. We have efficient network software that not only uses
and understands real domain addresses, but also is true full-duplex
as long as there is data queued at both ends of the link. And of
course it autoroutes, and returns things properly, and... (See a
USENIX proceedings for Piers Dick-Lauder's ACSnet paper). We laugh
a lot when we see people trying to put a tumor on a wart by ``domainizing''
UUCP. [Just thought I'd mention that; we may be Down Under but we
ain't Backward!]
John Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science,
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
[At the risk of editorializing, I would have to agree that our
Aussie friends are definitely NOT backwards. -editor]
[From Jack Waugh:]
I have two suggestions.
1) Make the number of readers one of the main criteria in deciding
whether to trash newsgroups. It's easy for someone with superuser
powers at each site to snoop eveybody's .newsrc files and see
what the "circulation" of each newsgroup is at that site, i. e.,
the number of subscribers.
Although counting the circulation could be done manually at first,
later revisions of the news software could have the ability to
respond to control messages ordering a count of circulation with
results to be mailed somewhere (or more reliably albeit expensively,
distributed on a special newsgroup). A central person could total
the counts from all the sites and publish a summary.
2) Modify the news software to allow anyone to cancel any article.
Boy, that would encourage politeness and brevity. Someone would
reflexively cancel any duplicate articles. The same fate would
befall anything that said, in all caps, to replace anything with
anything else, and the articles that completely quote some article,
then don't add anything decipherable.
[Remember that this topic is not closed. I am compiling
followups, replies, rebuttals to each of the topics. If
your point isn't here, then either wait for the topic to
be covered, or write in. The next topic will be "The Future
of the USENET Community," and the fourth will be "Power
Politics." --editor]
...ihnp4!gargoyle!benn (Thomas Cox)