gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (10/23/85)
I have seen some recent flamage on the subject of the rmgrouping of
net.bizarre and net.internat. I am not going to include the text of the
flamage, but want to discuss in general the policy of rmgrouping,
newgrouping and what groups should be where.
USENET stands for User's Network. In my opinion this means a network
for the users. In other words, the network should be whatever its
users want it to be. If the users want it to be a net for flames,
trivial pursuits, information or serious technical discussion, it should
be that net.
In the past, before the large influx of new sites and the "Information
Overload", it was possible for anyone to suggest the creation of a
group, and build it without risking high volumes of news inundating the
rest of the net. However, times have changed and there has to be a
consensus for the creating of a group. Similar requirements exist for
the retaining and removal of groups.
Which brings me to my main point, the net-wide creation and removal of
net.bizarre and net.internat. In the first place, Spaf is correct in
stating that those groups should never have existed, according to the
current charter of USENET, since a consensus was not reached by the net
whether the groups should have been created. However, Spaf's
countermove, removing the groups, shouldn't have been done either,
because there was no consensus by the net that the groups should be
removed.
Before you start up your 'f' keys ready to flame me, consider what I
said carefully in the previous paragraph. What I am pointing out here
is that the actions of a few are jeopardizing the entire net, which
cannot continue if the net is to continue. Whether that few is the
moderators list (which I am on), or a few respondents to a message
asking for votes for/against creation/deletion of a group, or just a
single person creating/deleting a group, it is not enough to justify
said actions. What is needed is what was proposed before, a site voting
mechanism on whether an action should be taken net-wide. In other
words, if someone is going to do something which affects the net as a
whole, as opposed to any local distribution, all the sites in the net
should vote on it.
This is not to say that groups cannot be created at all though. In the
first case, the sites which wanted to carry net.bizarre and
net.internat should have agreed to cooperatively carry the group
themselves without inflicting the rest of the net. Consequently, the
removal of said groups should have been done on a site-to-site basis, in
other words they should have no longer agreed to carry it, leaving the
rest of the sites who wish to carry the groups alone. Remember, there
are other sites with users who read those groups, who would be very
unhappy if their site lost their group with no warning.
I am not trying to single out any individuals here (sorry, Spaf, if I
mentioned your name) but trying to characterize what has been going on
in the net as of late in general and what needs to be done in the future
if the net is to survive. What is needed is better use of regional
distribution, moderation where necessary, and above all cooperation of
all users of the net to abide by the rules. Like I said, it is the
User's Network, so every user has a responsibility to make the net as
good as it can be.
One last word on the future of certain groups which are candidates for
deletion -- net.flame, net.general, net.religion, perhaps some others.
I am not going to comment on the absolute value of these groups -- they
fall into a category of group which only has value to the individual
readers of the group, and not to companies or institutions at large.
Whether or not that constitutes reason to keep that group around is not
for me to decide. I do have the option to create local distribution of
that group, or negotiate distribution of that group with other sites
which are willing to carry it. I do not have the right to remove the
group from the net completely, unless a consensus is reached by the net
that the group should go away. Ultimately, I can just take the group
off my site and refuse to distribute it, but that is as far as I should
go until a consensus is reached. I hope that this policy is adopted in
the future for groups which are candidates for removal.
Again, I did not intend for anyone to be singled out. I just want to
see the net have a little more peace and a lot less shouting. I welcome
comments (even flames) but before you hit your 'f' key think about what
I've been saying and how it affects you personally, your site, your
region, and ultimately the net.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edugreid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) (10/25/85)
Right. I was in on the creation of net.bizarre (my apologies)--rather,
once it was created improperly, I voted for its continuation as a "legal"
group. People on the net took pains to conduct the polling and consesus
stuff pretty officially, and the group was finally allowed to exist based
on the responses of people from all over the net. The discussion was
even held open for a number of weeks, as I recall (although somebody will
no doubt flame me for my poor memory).
In any case, the group has existed for some months without *ANY* grumblings
about its not being legal. If you didn't like the way it was created, you
had your chance to voice that when the discussion was going on in net.
news.group. How come all of a sudden, given some of the foolishness that is
posted there (you might note, by the way, that the quality is gradually
improving...) Gene and others decide that it must not have been created
legally, because they don't like what is being posted to it. It is too late
for that. You should have opened a discussion in net.news.group. But you
already know that, thanks to some carefully-thought-out arguments that have
recently appeared in this group.
I rescind my earlier contention that it is OK to just not forward a group,
but please don't rmgroup it. I realize that the net is not an anarchy,
but it was easy to type. That had little to do with my original point.
I don't think it is up to an individual site to decide if it likes a group
or not. It can decide if it likes the *net* or not, and is free to leave
it if it doesn't like it. If a site participates in the net, though, it
really is obligated to forward things. Or actively generate support for
re-vamping things. Not to just rmgroup net.whatever.
This makes things a bit delicate. If a number of the "backbone" sites
decide that they are sick of the net altogether, they will ruin the
current topology of the net. However, the net will persist, just watch.
There needs to be a way to control the growth of the net, since it is
getting to be leviathan, but any given site just isn't going to make that
much difference in the long run. I have been reading the net for three
years, just like a lot of other people, and you aren't fooling me.
I don't approve of sites taking things into their own hands in any form.
This includes "ignoring" rmgroups, "recreating" groups, etc., etc. When
one error is made, or somebody like Gene removes net.bizarre, the worst
thing that could happen is for each of the site administrators to take some
action which he/she thinks is appropriate. What is proper is probably to
take no immediate action ("delay" the action--use MANUAL) and to tune in
to net.news.group to see what the hell is going on.
Glenn Reid
{glacier,decwrl}!adobe!greid
--
You have new mail.woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/25/85)
> USENET stands for User's Network. In my opinion this means a network > for the users. In other words, the network should be whatever its > users want it to be. This is only true if the users casting the votes are also the ones PAYING for it. Everyone seems to forget that part. In the past, the cost wasn't such a major problem as it is now. The "correct" way to phrase the above paragraph is: the net should be for each site the net they choose it to be on that site. The problem with instituting a truly democratic net is that the backbone sites will pull out, as soon as other people start telling them what they should pay for. No backbone, no net. > net.bizarre and net.internat. In the first place, Spaf is correct in > stating that those groups should never have existed, according to the > current charter of USENET, since a consensus was not reached by the net > whether the groups should have been created. However, Spaf's > countermove, removing the groups, shouldn't have been done either, > because there was no consensus by the net that the groups should be > removed. I disagree. Failure to remove those groups would be a statement in fact that the rules of newsgroup creation are just words and have no real meaning. People do not obey rules unless they are enforced. Past experience has shown (including in this case!) that people do not follow the rules voluntarily. Therefore, SOMEONE has to enforce them. If not the backbone sites (who are paying for most of it) and net administrators (who are doing most of the work to keep it going), then who? > What I am pointing out here > is that the actions of a few are jeopardizing the entire net, which > cannot continue if the net is to continue. No, it is the exponential growth of the net (and hence, the cost associated with it) that is jeopardizing the net. The actions of a few, in this case, are an attempt to save the net in some form by adding a little organization to it, given that it is impossible for it to continue unlimited as it has in the past. > What is needed is what was proposed before, a site voting > mechanism on whether an action should be taken net-wide. In other > words, if someone is going to do something which affects the net as a > whole, as opposed to any local distribution, all the sites in the net > should vote on it. I disagree wholeheartedly. Although it sounds good on paper, the facts are that you cannot FORCE any site to agree with a netwide decision that affects THEIR phone bills. Trying to do this will only result in many sites, including those who are generously donating phone time/money to the rest of the net, off the net altogether. > This is not to say that groups cannot be created at all though. Neither do the current rules, which were not followed in this case. > the removal of said groups should have been done on a site-to-site basis, in > other words they should have no longer agreed to carry it, leaving the > rest of the sites who wish to carry the groups alone. This does not follow. This would only be true if the groups had been created properly in the first place. Since they weren't, this doesn't apply. > What is needed is better use of regional > distribution, moderation where necessary, and above all cooperation of > all users of the net to abide by the rules. I agree with the first two. Experience has shown over and over again that the last is unrealistic. We have seen both ignorant and malicious users not cooperating. I see no reason to expect things to improve in the future. We have to enforce the rules or they are useless. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/28/85)
> Right. I was in on the creation of net.bizarre (my apologies)--rather, > once it was created improperly, I voted for its continuation as a "legal" > group. People on the net took pains to conduct the polling and consesus > stuff pretty officially, and the group was finally allowed to exist based > on the responses of people from all over the net. This does not in any way change the fact that THERE WAS NO PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED NEED for the group. How many times does it need to be repeated before it penetrates your thick skull? VOTES ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR CREATING A NEW GROUP, no matter HOW many votes there are. Votes should be taken only AFTER there is a DEMONSTRATED NEED for a new group BASED ON PREVIOUS POSTINGS in existing groups. This group was created improperly, and that's all there is to it. Therefore, unless the rules for creating groups are changed, or are to be considered just so many ASCII characters, this group should be removed. Period. > In any case, the group has existed for some months without *ANY* grumblings > about its not being legal. This is not at all true. It was removed and then once again created improperly. This group has NEVER "officially" existed. Since the backbone sites no longer carry it, calling it net.anything is a joke. > If you didn't like the way it was created, you > had your chance to voice that when the discussion was going on in net. And many did. > news.group. How come all of a sudden, given some of the foolishness that is > posted there (you might note, by the way, that the quality is gradually > improving...) Gene and others decide that it must not have been created > legally, because they don't like what is being posted to it. Once again, for the 100th time for those with extra thick skulls, THE CONTENT OF THE GROUP IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. No one said ANYTHING about the content. Only the method of creation is at issue. Those who continually make statements like "because they don't like what is being posted to it" are deliberately bringing up irrelevant issues to hide the FACT, which is that net.bizarre was not created according to the agreed-upon procedure for creating groups. Period. The only reason I can see for these statements is to save one's own "pet" group, just the sort of thing the rules were designed to AVOID. > I don't think it is up to an individual site to decide if it likes a group > or not. It can decide if it likes the *net* or not, and is free to leave > it if it doesn't like it. Firstly, I disagree with this because it is unrealistic. Take this attitude, and many sites will indeed drop off the net, and what will you have left? Secondly, it is unenforceable. You cannot force any site to carry any groups they don't want, and you can't force them off the net as long as someone else is still willing to talk to them. To force a site off the net would require complete agreement from every site. What do you think the chances of that are? Stop dreaming and come back to REALITY. > If a site participates in the net, though, it > really is obligated to forward things. Whether this is morally true is debatable, and irrelevant. As above, it is clearly unenforceable. > This makes things a bit delicate. If a number of the "backbone" sites > decide that they are sick of the net altogether, they will ruin the > current topology of the net. However, the net will persist, just watch. And who do you suppose will pay for it? > There needs to be a way to control the growth of the net, since it is > getting to be leviathan, Clever deduction, Sherlock. That's the whole idea behind restricting creation of new groups. > I don't approve of sites taking things into their own hands in any form. Then offer to pay their phone bills for them, or shut up. > This includes "ignoring" rmgroups, "recreating" groups, etc., etc. When > one error is made, ...then it ought to be corrected. If it isn't, it is essentially a license for such "errors" to be made again in the future, a luxury we can no longer tolerate. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (10/29/85)
In article <1824@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > This does not in any way change the fact that THERE WAS NO PREVIOUSLY >DEMONSTRATED NEED for the group. How many times does it need to be repeated >before it penetrates your thick skull? VOTES ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS >FOR CREATING A NEW GROUP, no matter HOW many votes there are. But I believe votes should be sufficient (I have never approved of the present rules, in particular the rule that a discussion on a subject be already present). I believe that it is getting to the point where we should officially recognize that some weight should be attached to the "worth" of a proposed group's subject. In particular technical groups should be easier to create than recreational groups. "Technical" should be interpreted loosely here: I mean by technical some subject related to somebody's work. For instance, net.astro.* are technical groups for us. This could perhaps be weighed by the number of sites to whom the subject is a technical one, although as the net population drifts the balance may change... -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (10/31/85)
> From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) > This is only true if the users casting the votes are also the ones > PAYING for it. Everyone seems to forget that part. In the past, the cost > wasn't such a major problem as it is now. The "correct" way to phrase the > above paragraph is: the net should be for each site the net they choose > it to be on that site. The problem with instituting a truly democratic > net is that the backbone sites will pull out, as soon as other people > start telling them what they should pay for. No backbone, no net. What makes you think the backbone sites will be told what they should pay for? For one, they are free not to carry the groups they don't want to, tough luck on the rest of the net. Also, the backbone sites will get to vote on what sorts of netwide traffic will exist. What I am objecting to is one or a few people making a decision to do something independent of all the othefr sites, like removing a group with productive traffic in it. > No, it is the exponential growth of the net (and hence, the cost associated > with it) that is jeopardizing the net. The actions of a few, in this case, > are an attempt to save the net in some form by adding a little organization > to it, given that it is impossible for it to continue unlimited as it has > in the past. What I was referring to is the decisions of individuals to do something that has netwide effect. This puts the fault on both the creators and destroyers of net.bizarre and net.internat. True, if the creators of net.internat and net.bizarre had obeyed the rules, we wouldn't be shouting like this. But if there had been some discussion about the removal of net.bizarre and renaming of net.internat before the rmgroups, we wouldn't be shouting like this either. [I metioned the suggestion of thef voting scheme here for future netwide decisions.] > I disagree wholeheartedly. Although it sounds good on paper, the facts are > that you cannot FORCE any site to agree with a netwide decision that affects > THEIR phone bills. Trying to do this will only result in many sites, > including those who are generously donating phone time/money to the > rest of the net, off the net altogether. You seem to think that the netwide votes will always be in opposition to the backbone votes. Judging from the comments I've seen from other news/site admins on reducing net volume, I'd say most people are in favor of removing some groups or at least restricting their distribution. Also, the site vote would have to be a function of how many outgoing feeds the site has, so sites like ihnp4 will have lots of voice in determining which groups will exist on the net. In the final instance, a site like ihnp4 can reject any netwide decision and refuse to pass a newsgroup, which will undoubtedly reduce traffic in certain high-volume low-content groups. That is what we want. Simply rmgrouping all the groups a set of individuals don't want to exist is unfair to the rest of the net -- let them worry about footing the bills for the groups they want to keep and the backbone sites can worry about footing their own bills. As an aside, the rmgrouping of net.bizarre and net.internat did NOT help decrease the volume of postings, because (1) many people have chosen not to honor the rmgroup message and (2) the flames that have sprung up as a result of the rmgrouping take the place of the traffic in the deleted groups. So, in effect, articles which would not have been posted otherwise were posted, which is what we are trying to prevent. >> the removal of said groups should have been done on a site-to-site basis, in >> other words they should have no longer agreed to carry it, leaving the >> rest of the sites who wish to carry the groups alone. > This does not follow. This would only be true if the groups had been > created properly in the first place. Since they weren't, this doesn't apply. Of course it does. Read my above two paragraphs. No one is *forcing* any site to do *anything*! But with the rmgroups, you are forcing sites *not* to receive the articles they want. A backbone site is within its rights not to carry traffic, but it shouldn't make that decision for the whole net. >> What is needed is better use of regional >> distribution, moderation where necessary, and above all cooperation of >> all users of the net to abide by the rules. > I agree with the first two. Experience has shown over and over again that > the last is unrealistic. We have seen both ignorant and malicious users not > cooperating. I see no reason to expect things to improve in the future. > We have to enforce the rules or they are useless. I believe that if voting rules were adopted, those people who were not cooperating would be quick to cooperate once told they'd lose their news feeds if they didn't. We don't even need voting to do this -- if someone on some site is doing things he oughtn't, the site can be warned that they will cut them off if the malicious behavior isn';t stopped. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/31/85)
> What makes you think the backbone sites will be told what they should > pay for? For one, they are free not to carry the groups they don't want > to, tough luck on the rest of the net. Isn't this, in practice, just about equivalent to the "backbone cabal" running things, which has been objected to so strongly? I don't like that idea either, even if I *am* on a backbone site. I'd much rather see us adopt, stick to, and when necessary, enforce a common set of rules agreed on by NETWIDE consensus that would reduce traffic in an ORDERLY manner. > What I was referring to is the decisions of individuals to do something > that has netwide effect. Isn't that exactly what happens if the backbone admins decide to drop a group from their sites? Only worse, because many will still think the group exists when in practice only a small proportion of net readers will see what they post in that group. > This puts the fault on both the creators and > destroyers of net.bizarre and net.internat. True, if the creators of > net.internat and net.bizarre had obeyed the rules, we wouldn't be > shouting like this. But if there had been some discussion about the > removal of net.bizarre and renaming of net.internat before the rmgroups, > we wouldn't be shouting like this either. True, we wouldn't. Instead, we would have made a quiet statement that it's OK to violate the rules. The reason we ARE shouting so much is that this quietness is exactly what has happened in the past. Now that someone (Gene) has decided to ENFORCE the rules, look what happens, PRECISELY because he (and those in his position) were trying to avoid the inevitable confrontation it would cause. I guess Gene believes (and I concur) that we can no longer afford not to enforce the rules that we have. > You seem to think that the netwide votes will always be in opposition to > the backbone votes. No, not that they ALWAYS will, just that they SOMETIMES might, and what happens in those cases? If everyone EXCEPT those paying the lions' share of the cost wants to keep net.flame, say, (as a hypothetical example) how can we FORCE the backbone to pay for it? > Judging from the comments I've seen from other > news/site admins on reducing net volume, I'd say most people are in > favor of removing some groups or at least restricting their > distribution. Me, too. How many flames do you think Spaf would get if he tries to rmgroup net.flame, despite the apparent agreement that it should go (jj is taking a survey, and he says so far it's about 50:1 in favor of getting rid of net.flame). > Also, the site vote would have to be a function of how > many outgoing feeds the site has Sounds like a good idea, but an accounting nightmare. > In the final > instance, a site like ihnp4 can reject any netwide decision and refuse > to pass a newsgroup, which will undoubtedly reduce traffic in certain > high-volume low-content groups. In that case, what's the point of taking a netwide vote? > rmgrouping all the groups a set of individuals don't want to exist is > unfair to the rest of the net I have yet to see anything like this happen. I don't think Gene, myself or anyone else who agrees with us has ever said we don't want net.internat to exist in some form. We just want to see it created PROPERLY, so that we don't HAVE to go through this again next time. > As an aside, the rmgrouping of net.bizarre and net.internat did NOT help > decrease the volume of postings, because (1) many people have chosen not > to honor the rmgroup message and (2) the flames that have sprung up as a > result of the rmgrouping take the place of the traffic in the deleted > groups. So, in effect, articles which would not have been posted > otherwise were posted, which is what we are trying to prevent. This is true, IN THE SHORT RUN. Spaf's attempt to enforce the rules THIS time is a long-range plan. Obviously, it has brought up some issues that need to be discussed. Maybe we SHOULD change the rules for newsgroup creation. It is beginning to become obvious that demonstrated volume isn't the only criteria we should use. In that case, let's change the rules. But until we do change them, by netwide consensus, we should enforce what we have. Any rules that allow the creation of a "useful" group such as net.internat must also include some OBJECTIVE criteria for defining what is "useful". What groups SHOULD be allowed to be created without prior demonstrated volume? Does that mean we should rmgroup those that do not fit the existing criteria, or adopt "grandfather clauses"? I'm not just trying to be difficult here; I really think these are things that need to be clearly defined, in order that we can AVOID having a meta-discussion like this again in the future. Whatever set of rules we adopt must take into account the fact that we can't allow total freedom any more. The backbone sites won't pay for it. > Of course it does. Read my above two paragraphs. No one is *forcing* > any site to do *anything*! But with the rmgroups, you are forcing sites > *not* to receive the articles they want. A backbone site is within its > rights not to carry traffic, but it shouldn't make that decision for the > whole net. The way the net is currently set up, a couple of backbone sites dropping a group DOES drop it as a netwide group. It becomes a fragmented local group, with the readers and posters under the illusion that it is a netwide group. I feel it IS better to rmgroup it and let the individual sites or groups of sites create local groups for it if they still want it. > I believe that if voting rules were adopted, those people who were not > cooperating would be quick to cooperate once told they'd lose their news > feeds if they didn't. In other words, enforce whatever rules are in place at the time. But, this requires enforcement of the rules by neighboring sites; it just requires the cooperation to come from a different place. Same problem. There has to be SOME kind of centralized enforcement or the rules are a joke. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (11/02/85)
> From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) >> What I was referring to is the decisions of individuals to do something >> that has netwide effect. > Isn't that exactly what happens if the backbone admins decide to drop > a group from their sites? Only worse, because many will still think the > group exists when in practice only a small proportion of net readers > will see what they post in that group. You are again assuming that all the backbones will vote uniformly against something the non backbones vote for. For example, one SA of a backbone site argued *against* net.bizarre, and several agreed to continue passing net.internat traffic. Perhpas a group like net.bizarre would turn into a local-pocket group with only one backbone site passing it, but net.internat would probaly still function, although the propagation delays would be somewhat greater. Even if a majority of the backbones drop a group, I'm still not convinced this is a bad thing. Generally, it is the same people who do the flaming in the high-volume groups, and the only audience they care about are the people they are flaming with. It will be up to them to see that their flames reach their destinations, putting the burden on them to set up alternate news feeds. For the casual poster, it is a little more difficult, because no, their posting won't get everywhere they think it is going. But that is what we have the moderated groups for, so that reasonable people have a netwide audience. For every group which is a *candidate* for deletion, perhaps a mod group can be created (or used, if it already exists!) for netwide posting. mod.music (my group) is a perfect example of a mod group just waiting to be used -- I encourage anyone who really wants to discuss music withouht getting into kate bush arguments use mod.music. If it shouuld come to pass that net.music is rmgrouped, or fragmented, you'll still have a place where your reasonable comments can be aired. [Here I explain that the rmgroups cause a lot of flamage that wouldn't otherwise have happened.] > The reason we ARE shouting so much is that this quietness is exactly > what has happened in the past. Now that someone (Gene) has decided to > ENFORCE the rules, look what happens, PRECISELY because he (and those > in his position) were trying to avoid the inevitable confrontation it > would cause. I can recall occasions in the past when groups were created incorrectly and persons (even Spaf) took corrective measueres to see that the group was remade correctly, then the rmgroups on the old group were issueed. Net.religion.xian comes to mind (someone shortened the name because they thought notes wouldn't handle it). After the error was corrected (use of aliasing was suggested) net.religion.xian was rmgrouped. I find it hard to believe that Spaf thought his rmgroup would not have been met with opposition. Anytime someone makes a drastic change (or proposal) to the structure of USENET, it is met with flames. We have had a recent example of it here -- the keyword-based news incident. Last year it was stargate and the creation of the mod groups. If Spaf had just tried to correct the error, at least in the case of net.internat, by suggesting its renaming, we wouldn't be flaming half as much as we are now. Net.bizarre is an entirely different issue -- I think enough sites would have soon dropped it to warrant its official removal. >> You seem to think that the netwide votes will always be in opposition to >> the backbone votes. > No, not that they ALWAYS will, just that they SOMETIMES might, and what > happens in those cases? If everyone EXCEPT those paying the lions' share > of the cost wants to keep net.flame, say, (as a hypothetical example) > how can we FORCE the backbone to pay for it? Well, in those extreme cases, the backbones are free to resist. But this again assumes that the backbones will all vote the same way, and it will always be against a YES vote to a noise group. > ... hao!woods talks about the votes regarding removal of net.flame, so > far 50:1 against If enough site admins vote, I think we can reach a reasonable consensus on what to do about net.flame. In a later posting, I am going to propose how to go about taking the net vote. I have been giving the matter some thought and I think it warrants a proposal at least. I welcome comments when I release the proposal. >> In the final instance, a site like ihnp4 can reject any netwide >> decision and refuse to pass a newsgroup, which will undoubtedly reduce >> traffic in certain high-volume low-content groups. > In that case, what's the point of taking a netwide vote? So that a group is not altogether removed or created until every site who has an opinion can be heard, and alternate solutions can be proposed. >> rmgrouping all the groups a set of individuals don't want to exist is >> unfair to the rest of the net > I have yet to see anything like this happen. it just happened with net.bizarre and net.internat > I don't think Gene, myself or anyone else who agrees with us has ever > said we don't want net.internat to exist in some form. We just want to > see it created PROPERLY, so that we don't HAVE to go through this again > next time. If that's true then Spaf should have proposed a new name for it, and waited for the traffic to move there, before removing the group. [I comment on how the removal of the groups caused us to start yelling, thus replacing the traffic generated by the old groups. hao!woods indicates that the yelling is a short-time thing, and the rmgroups were part of a long range plan. He agrees that the rules should be changed for newsgroup creation.] I'm glad to see we agree on something! It is time to start thinking about new criteria for groups in general, both new and old. That's what I'll be working on for a while. I'd like to hear comments from all of you on what constitues a worthwhile newsgroup, and criteria for judging the worthiness of groups. > The way the net is currently set up, a couple of backbone sites dropping > a group DOES drop it as a netwide group. It becomes a fragmented local group, > with the readers and posters under the illusion that it is a netwide group. > I feel it IS better to rmgroup it and let the individual sites or groups of > sites create local groups for it if they still want it. I haven't seen a USENET map lately, but I doubt that if two or three backbones dropped a group the group wouldn't get across the net. Perhaps after half of them dropped a group there would be local pockets. But like I said above, I'm not convinced there's anything wrong with this, and there are mechanisms in place to enable low-volume high-content postings to traverse the net. Guess I've rambled long enough on this topic. Coming soon is the voting proposal. Followups to this discussion in net.news only please, since this has turned into a discussion of USENET itself. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (11/02/85)
i've been following this discussion of and on for the past year or so and i wouldn't be surprised if it dates much further back than when i started reading this. i've decided to put my two cents worth in and what i have to say is my own personal opinion. In article <1835@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > Isn't this, in practice, just about equivalent to the "backbone cabal" >running things, which has been objected to so strongly? I don't like that >idea either, even if I *am* on a backbone site. I'd much rather see us >adopt, stick to, and when necessary, enforce a common set of rules >agreed on by NETWIDE consensus that would reduce traffic in an ORDERLY >manner. if the backbone site is paying for a service that it alone doesn't stand to break even from, never mind make money on, then it a very bad business practice. when USENET traffic rises to about twice the current level, there will be only a few machines capable of handling the message traffic in terms of raw CPU power, let alone disk space to hold everything. my own opinion is that this point will be reached in perhaps two years. somewhere along the way, either the net falls apart into sections (communicating through moderated gateways) that are more manageable, a large fraction of the newsgroups become moderated, or the net falls apart. i do not believe that there are any other likely scenarios. a problem with the last suggestion made by Greg is that the net readership (and hence the posters) have a very high turnover. by the time a consensus is reached, half the people aren't on it anymore and the new half hasn't heard of original arguments/issues. you spend all you time explaning the same thing over and over in the hopes that someone will listen. it is idealistic, and i think an admirable goal, but i see little chance of it coming to pass without a lot of firm prodding by the SA's of the backbone sites. which get back to being a few people making the decisions for the many. > True, we wouldn't. Instead, we would have made a quiet statement that it's >OK to violate the rules. The reason we ARE shouting so much is that this >quietness is exactly what has happened in the past. Now that someone (Gene) >has decided to ENFORCE the rules, look what happens, PRECISELY because >he (and those in his position) were trying to avoid the inevitable >confrontation it would cause. I guess Gene believes (and I concur) that >we can no longer afford not to enforce the rules that we have. if the rules AREN'T enforced soon, there will be no net to work from. there'll be a fragmented collection of sites exchanging information to whomever will accept them and developing their own identity as well as their own problems, isolated from the rest of the net. to this point, the net has had an identity that has been possible by the fact that one group of people are making sure that there are no unresponsible creation of newsgroups. the contents of the groups has been pretty much left alone except for moderated newsgroups. > No, not that they ALWAYS will, just that they SOMETIMES might, and what >happens in those cases? If everyone EXCEPT those paying the lions' share >of the cost wants to keep net.flame, say, (as a hypothetical example) >how can we FORCE the backbone to pay for it? no way at all, except to have the sites pay for a fraction of the costs of a backbone site. in fact, it may come to the point where a comapany is formed solely to make a profit handling USENET mail, though i sincerely hope that that never happens. on the other hand, we could then make demands for guaranteed service level requirements. >> Also, the site vote would have to be a function of how >> many outgoing feeds the site has > Sounds like a good idea, but an accounting nightmare. not to mention not likely to be fair to everyone. a greatly mistaken belief that many people have is that a simple voting scheme where majority rules is fair. it isn't and never will be. in a community as large as the net, even a 5% minority is a sizable number of people. >Any rules that allow the creation of a "useful" group >such as net.internat must also include some OBJECTIVE criteria for defining >what is "useful". What groups SHOULD be allowed to be created without >prior demonstrated volume? Does that mean we should rmgroup those that >do not fit the existing criteria, or adopt "grandfather clauses"? the only way to arrive at a reasonable set of criteria in a short time is for a small number of people do it who already know a whole lot about USENET. unfortunately, this has already started a lot of flames about the USENET "gods". > Whatever set of rules we adopt must take into account the fact that >we can't allow total freedom any more. The backbone sites won't pay for it. but people will still say that it's a right and not a priviledge, injecting the words "censorship" and "freedom of speech" into the issue. the backbone sites are currently providing a service that they are currently losing money at. if they charged for what service was rendered (CPU, disk, telephone lines), you can bet your local SA will keep a watch on, or even kill news groups that are costing lots of money. > The way the net is currently set up, a couple of backbone sites dropping >a group DOES drop it as a netwide group. It becomes a fragmented local group, >with the readers and posters under the illusion that it is a netwide group. >I feel it IS better to rmgroup it and let the individual sites or groups of >sites create local groups for it if they still want it. and so will begin the downfall of the net. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... New net address -- VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/02/85)
> I disagree. Failure to remove those groups would be a statement in fact > that the rules of newsgroup creation are just words and have no real meaning. Then net.bizarre should have been zapped right away. As it is it was let alone for too long. This set an unfortunate precedent. Maybe there need to be different rules for technical & non-technical groups. > > the removal of said groups should have been done on a site-to-site basis, in > > other words they should have no longer agreed to carry it, leaving the > > rest of the sites who wish to carry the groups alone. > > This does not follow. This would only be true if the groups had been > created properly in the first place. Since they weren't, this doesn't apply. Maybe groups need to be *created* on a site-to-site basis as well. I find the concept of groups growing from certain core sites as neigbours find them useful very appealing. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/03/85)
> > What makes you think the backbone sites will be told what they should > > pay for? For one, they are free not to carry the groups they don't want > > to, tough luck on the rest of the net. > > Isn't this, in practice, just about equivalent to the "backbone cabal" > running things, which has been objected to so strongly? I don't like that > idea either, even if I *am* on a backbone site. I'd much rather see us ...add some more non-backbone cross-links. That way non-backbone groups can stay alive, albeit with more delays. The net really needs more connectivity, anyway. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/09/85)
> perhaps two years. somewhere along the way, either the net falls apart > into sections (communicating through moderated gateways) that are more > manageable, a large fraction of the newsgroups become moderated, or the > net falls apart. i do not believe that there are any other likely > scenarios. How about "the volume reaches some sort of peak as longer and longer delays start to turn off the less dedicated members"? Perhaps if each backbone deliberately added a delay, at least for non-technical groups, this theory could be tested. I more or less agree with the rest of your message. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter