oz@utcsstat.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (07/17/84)
Laura Creighton of utzoo comments, in part: > >..... Also, it >would be very nice if somebody fixed 42 bugs in some net.sources >offerning and then posted the fixed version, rather than posting >the 42 fixes one at a time. > The question is, how one can possibly coordinate this, when it is not possible to have any consistency of posting across the network. The fundamental issue here is not one of "some unenlightened individual out there posted yet another piece of junk to wrong subgroup" or "120 pieces of news arguing about ``char->long'' conversion". It is merely another exercise of PRISONER'S DILEMMA. (No room to describe the theory - see May-June 1983 issues of Scientific American under Metamagical Themas) It is a game of cooperation vs defection. And this too, explains why this network is *bound* to get out of hand at one point, perhaps forcing the system administrators, the phone company and the general membership with sour eyes to think of the implications carefully. Ah, unlike doomsday preachers, I am very optimistic about a population of intelligent and communicating souls. Especially when they are forced to think. (:-) I guess i cannot help but point out the fact that the very problem of net.sources is a BUG. Thus any mail, such as Laura's ~~ENOUGH OF ....~~ mail may be seen as a BUG-FIX. (Just like mine..) SO, what happens if 42 concerned net-citizens try to FIX this bug along with Laura ?? See the connection ?? NO, I cannot offer any solutions. Anything one can come up with, whether it is computerized or sociological, is bound to be temporary, "STOPGAP" at this point. Just like there is no stable solution to "rush hour" traffic. And consider all the growing number of privately owned UN*X system out there, willing and able (they got UUCP) to join the network to discuss their opinions on net.food or to pick up the latest version of IBM-PC MAKE. Thus, along with any such communication medium designed to communicate everything to everybody, USENET must face the INFORMATION OVERLOAD. I will be there too, trying to clean-up uncountable number of news items off my RA81, or skimming the latest book reviews scrolling past at 9600 baud. flames, suggestions, ideas, prophecies are all welcome. After all, it is our network, and if we fail, we ALL fail !! OZ (wizard of something or another..) York University Dept. of Computer Science Electric: ..!decvax!utzoo!yetti!oz .............!utcsstat!oz
bek@duke.UUCP (07/19/84)
yetti!oz has some good insights about the nature of network postings. I also think that the PRISONER'S DILEMMA applies. What's good for one may be bad for all. What is easy for one may make it harder on all of us. But I do think there is a solution. We are playing the ITTERATED prisoner's dilemma, and if my software were agile enough to respond to specific persons' cooperations and defections, such persons might have an insentive to cooperate. I once threatened to suspend forwarding of news from X because of X!jerk. If only I had the software to back up my threat. But alas, my only defense is to unsubscribe, and since my machine still forewards stuff I don't read, the article glut still threatens to kill the ntework. I would also like to see more groups similar to net.announce, which, I have just learned, is moderated. If the software could support dymanic, collective approval of moderators for some groups, we could elect (pure democracy for the first time in history?) the people we want to listen to. Please note that I DO fear majority rule censorship, but I do think that rules (enforced by the software) can be created so that the net is still free for all opinions. Barrett Koster ..!decvax!duke!bek ...from duke! ... Somebody around here started this mess.
john@genrad.UUCP (John Nelson) (07/20/84)
Perhaps net.sources should be a moderated newsgroup. It is not like some of the other newsgroups where immediate responses are important. This way we can weed out inappropriate messages, and have a single address where users can send mail asking for a repost or a mail copy of a munged program! I would also like to see net.sources.bugs (or net.bugs.sources) where bugs in net-distributed software could be sent. This should also be moderated by someone willing to apply the fixes and verify that they work (or at least that the changes are appropriate and in a usable format). I'd be willing to moderate such a group, but I have no idea how it is done, and I am not a system administrator, either. Also, it would be better if the administrator was on an ARPA site, to handle the requests that come from non-usenet sites. John P. Nelson (decvax!genrad!john) Genrad MS 96 37 Great Road Bolton MA 01740