derek (02/07/83)
I really like Usenet. It gives us all a forum to discuss almost everything under the sun with our peers. There are a few problems. Since we are all equal, no one can tell anyone else what to do. While this is good for the most part, it does create some petty fighting among us. Imagine, now in this electronic age it is possible to make sworn enemies without ever laying eyes upon them. In particular, the debate over which groups should and should not exist. Recently there was a discussion about net.gdead and whether it should be terminated or moved to net.music.gdead. A note just came to me saying that it was removed by watarts!usenet after I had seen at least 4 requests to retain it in its present form. *sigh* I would like to propose a form of central control. WAIT, before you start flaming please hear me out. In this country, we pride ourselves on democracy. I believe that this is also the custom in the United States of America too. Why don't we elect a panel from among ourselves to decide upon such issues. The head of the panel we could call a Prime Minister, or a President if you wish. This panel could decide upon which groups should be here and which should not. They could hear the proposals for new groups and make a decision. It would then be up to the president to turn the plan to action and create the newsgroup. This panel would have power. It would be given to them by we the people. If we all decide to go ahead with this I propose the following procedure. o create a group of 12 people spread out as remotely as possible o everyone who wished to vote would register with each one o prior to voting, the list of registered voters would be posted to the net. Possible bogus voters would be spotted at this time. o all registered voters would then cast their ballots for their candidate(s) o the results are tallied and our panel comes into existence. I would recommend that the panel consist of 12 'good men tried and true' and women too! The period of office would be one year at which time the panel's final duty would be to hold the next election. This panel could officiate at the birds of a feather sessions at Usenet, could be responsible for issuing letters of reprimand to netnews readers who fail to follow our code of conduct (the netnews etiquette which we all follow). What do you think? I think you should post your answers rather than mail me direct - especially if they are personal attacks. I have submitted this in good faith, hoping to prevent the coming of NET WARS. Derek Andrew U of Saskatchewan
swatt (02/08/83)
Clearly, Derek is right that something has to be done; random people anywhere in the net should not have the ability to destroy news in machines not under their control. There is also the issue of those systems who pay the costs to store and forward news having some control over how and how much their resources are used. Various proposed solutions have been kicking around the net for well over a year. There are two basic camps: 1) Administrative solutions. These advocate new policies, USENET boards to make decisions, etc. Derek's ideas are of this type. There was considerable discussion about a month ago about a proposed "USENET, Inc." organization to take over administration chores. 2) Technical solutions. Change the news software to allow each site better control. Both types of solutions have their problems, which have been fairly well discussed already. I personally fall into those who favor technical solutions, not becuase I unconditionally reject central control, but because I believe any central control will have to manifest itself in technical fixes anyway just to be effective. Our site doesn't (yet) have the problem of management objecting to net.jokes, but I do worry about "erewhon!usenet" doing some random damage to an important newsgroup just for fun. So, my desires for technical changes are: 1) There ought to be a distinction between what a site is willing to accept for itself and what it is willing to forward to others. 2) The principle ought to be embodied that only the local news administrator can do something irrevocable, unless by special pre-arrangement for the convenience of people who adminsiter several sites (this of course requires either massive UUCP changes, or a layer of encryption). 3) The cost of running USENET ought to be more visible so the local administrator can make informed decisions about which newsgroups to support and which to drop. Curently you have to go to a fair amount of work to dig this out, and if your site is like ours, news is EXPENSIVE. Now one problem both administrative and technical solutions (mine included) have in common is they all represent volunteering of someone else's time. Most people I talk to already maintain news in their "spare" time, so there isn't a lot left over. Doesn't someone out there want to do a thesis on "Means of Distributed Control Over A Public News Network?" - Alan S. Watt
derek (02/08/83)
More on my idea: I do not advocate central control exactly, but rather a panel of people to set some reasonable policies. The duties of the panel would be basically decide on the names of newsgroups and if there is a demand. Since they would be elected my a majority, I am sure that most of us would follow their decisions. They would be people that we all knew and respect, such as Mark Horton. I am sure most of us would agree that persons of this class would have better ideas about which newsgroups should exists than first time users. Is there anybody out there who would not respect Mark Horton's opinion? I personally feel that what he has done for the net is a great service to ALL of us. If he said that 'net.trivia' should not exists, I would not dismiss this as a stupid idea. Note that I have used Mark's name without his consent, not to suggest that he be on such a panel, but to show the class of person which would occupy the panel. Derek Andrew U of Saskatchewan