chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/25/84)
{look out, Martha! he's gone wild again! Run for the hills!}
Good grief, I seem to have been storing all of this up for a while. Here
goes Chuqui again. Warning. Major flame. All flammable materials should be
stored no closer than 50 feet from your terminal.
This absurd business of 'voting' on new topics has GOT to stop. It doesn't
do any good. It drives many people completely bonkers. If you REALLY REALLY
REALLY want a topic, show some need for it, for gawds sake!
The whole administration of the network seems to have gotten completely out
of hand. There are now thousands and thousands (can you say 'Billions and
Billions? I knew you could) of sites out there and lots of users. To date
we've been able to survive as a loosely knit anarchy where the person with
the biggest stick (and/or loudest voice) has been able to get something
done, but in the last six months it has gotten to the point where a small
tactical thermonuclear device can't even make a dent in things. We are now
spending all of our time arguing and very little time being at all
productive on getting anything done. The net has simply gotten too large to
continue as an anarchy.
WAIT! don't hit that 'F' key yet. This is NOT Yet Another Usenet Inc. I
don't want to see that. What I think we need is (*gasp* Has Chuqui gone
sane?) a committee. Someone needs to oversee the process of creating (and
deleting perhaps) topics. I heartily suggest that we create a group of our
peers on the net who work on a voluntary basis. Instead of posting a
suggestion to net.news.group, you submit a proposal to this group with
justifications for its existence. Usage in another topic is a good one, but
there are many reasons for having topics. If they can get a positive
consensus, the group is created. If they disagree with you, it isn't. There
should be some way of appealing their decision, of course, but it has to be
an agreed upon procedure rather than something arbitrary like creating it
anyway.
I suggest a group of something like five people that the majority of the
network users can agree with. If any three agree on something then that is
the decision. If the network decides that someone in the group (or the
group itself) blew it then they can be re-called (hmm.. voting and such. Is
this the beginning of a *gasp* democracy?)
Who? Well, for starters I immediately think of people like Mark Horton, the
networks paternal grandfather, Adam, Lauren, Armando, and other well known
and respected users. Most of these have had a large part in shaping what
the net is today and have done a good job of it. I think they can continue
to do so into the future as well if we cooperate with them.
flames to /dev/chuqui. Comments welcome
--
From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
I'm really gonna miss her. A tomato ate my sister...spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (05/28/84)
A steering committee. I like the idea. Something to avoid all this
foolishness about voting. I like the idea. Good show, Chuq!
I vote YES for a committee (oops, sorry Chuq). Mark, Adam, and Lauren
seem natural choices for such a group. I think Chuq himself might
be good for such a group (they could debate nuking woebegone).
--
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech @ CSNet-Relay
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf
...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!spafkimcm@diku.UUCP (05/28/84)
Well I agree that there is an awful lot of votings for creating
new newsgroups, and that it is boring to read all kind of stuff
you don't have the slightest interrest in. However I strongly
disagree with the idea of making some kind of committee that
should decide what groups are to be created and what groups
have to be closed due to some arbitrary decission from some
elected (?) net-administrators. What comes next the
administrators should emit articles that they considered "not
interesting"! This shouldn't be 1984 (Hrmm...at least not the
year of Orwell) where some administrators decide what's proper
and what's not.
I think that it would be a better idea to make an appeal to
people that they should limit the material they are posting,
and not posting the same thing more than once. And at the same
time posting the stuff to the right group. The main problem as
I see it is that the size of information to recieve from the
net is so overwhelming that no one cares to read it all, then
don't! If you can agree at you site what groups you want to
receive material from, the cut off the others...
Well, I don't think that I have anything more to add so have a
good time... But remember BIG BROTHER is not a reality yet,
but....
Kim Chr. Madsen.
Institute of Computer Science
University of Copenhagen Denmarkbarto@celerity.UUCP (David Barto) (05/28/84)
I agree with Chuq. A steering group. I do not post lots of things
to the news, I just read it. I use the news to get my job done.
The amount of time I have spent passing over the "I want to create
a new group, lets all vote on it" messages makes me sick. The
group he proposes sounds great.
Sorry about the 'Yes' vote. :-)
--
barto
(david barto)
uucp : {decvax || ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!barto
uucp : akgua!celerity!barto
arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!barto@nosc
Tele : (619) 271 9940ed@mtxinu.UUCP (05/29/84)
Chuq hasn't gone sane, not by a long shot. He just wants a camel for the net! :-) -- Ed Gould ucbvax!mtxinu!ed
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/29/84)
>I vote YES for a committee (oops, sorry Chuq). **ACK** >I think Chuq himself might be good for such a group (they could debate >nuking woebegone). I left myself out on purpose, and not because of my innate modesty (which I have never been known to have anyway) or because I wanted someone else to nominiate me. I left myself out because I don't feel I am appropriate for the committee. I have taken a number of stands in the past that have turned out to be rather radical or unpopular. I feel that I would either polarize the group or reduce its ability to work with the rest of the net because of my tendency to jump on a 'great cause' with both fee regardless of its ability to become reality. I'd much rather see wiser and cooler heads than me at the helm. (If nominated, I shall not run, If elected, I shall not serve. Or something like that. - Ted Kennedy) -- From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach {amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242 I'm sure I have my death ray in here somewhere...
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (05/29/84)
> A steering committee. I like the idea. Something to avoid all this > foolishness about voting. I like the idea. Good show, Chuq! > > I vote YES for a committee (oops, sorry Chuq). Mark, Adam, and Lauren > seem natural choices for such a group. I think Chuq himself might > be good for such a group (they could debate nuking woebegone). > -- > Off the Wall of Gene Spafford I hope the above is intended intended as a joke. I am totally opposed to the steering committee idea. Again the authoritarians attempt to take over. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (05/30/84)
Kim:
I think you are over-reacting. First, the reality is that the group I
envision for the committee tends to make many or most of the decisions for
the net anyway because they are the spiritual force behind the net. This
just formalizes the position a bit.
Second, it would be up to the net to build a charter for the group and
decide who would be on it. Because of the nature of the net if the group
starts mis-behaving it would be easy to dissolve because it would be
trivial to simply ignore them.
Third, I don't see their decisions as arbitrary because they will be
motivated by requests from the users of the net. They don't go looking for
things, they simply arbitrate them. I specifically suggested some form of
appeal procedure as well to minimize the problem of arbitraryness.
Finally, something has to be done. The current situation no longer seems to
be working. I made a suggestion. If you don't like the suggestion then feel
free to create your own. I'd really appreciate positive comments on the
situation. I don't know that a committee is the best way to go considering
the history of the net, it just seems the most reasonable from my
perspective. If you don't agree, suggest alternatives rather that simply
ripping up what exists.
chuq
--
>From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
I'm sure I have my death ray in here somewhere...mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/30/84)
The original idea behind voting was that people were supposed to MAIL their votes to the person proposing the group. Not follow up, reply. It's hard for a committee (or any one person) to decide whether a certain group makes sense. The question is whether there is enough interest in it, and what the name should be. A committee could choose the name, but it can't tell how many people are interested. Hence the voting (which is really more of an opinion poll.) Mark Horton
osd@hou2d.UUCP (Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz) (05/30/84)
Chuq,
Alternatives have been proposed, for example, the tiredgroups
idea that would liberalize the creation of new subgroups without
overburding the systems. Another idea was the temporary group
with a builtin time bomb. These require some software modifications
and all the technical issues must be resolved, though in the
case of the tiredgroup proposal, the issues are now well identified.
Your idea about a group of people making those decisions about
what groups come into being and what don't is not new either,
and because of the nature of the USENET community, is not going to
fly. Horton himself rejected it already.
About voting: This is one of the reasons I support better software
based proposals for making USENET a dynamic beast, and people, please
come up with more. Voting to the proponent of a new group has never
worked for several reasons:
a. People can't reply (or don't know how to reply) to the originator
of the proposal for a new group.
b. Mail gets lost far too often, so some people prefer to make a public
disclosure of their vote.
c. Politics gets in the way and some with strong feelings in favor or
against a new group will make their opinion public anyway hoping
to influence others.
d. Nobody trusts the vote count anyway.
So, let's think about automating the process of creating new groups
and maintaining them with little impact on system load. You are
in the software business, so think automation, not manual intervention.
--
Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz /AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Road
/Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733 (Room 3M 325)
Tel: 201-949-1532 /UUCP: {{{ucbvax,decvax}!}{ihnp4,harpo}!}hou2d!osdkimcm@diku.UUCP (Kim Chr. Madsen) (06/02/84)
Chuq:
I don't think that I over-reacted, but I really don't see the
point in creating such a committee, for several reasons and you
just gave me one more.
1) Such a committee often leads to an awful lot of
bureaucrazy.
2) If it is that easy to ignore them, then why should
they be there. I thought it was meant to be a group
who should stand guard on the net and see that no one
broke the net-laws. If it's easy to ignore them and
send whatever you like on the net anyway, then why
bother have a group.
3) I think that even the most well-meant group or
committee gets somewhat corrupt when they are given
power. (I usually don't think bad about people, but
I had bad expirience in this field...)
You asked for other alternatives, instead of a committee which
already exist as anonymous spirits that guide this network. My
alternative is that the people who use the net should make
the laws of the use of it. After all it's concerning all of us,
how the net works and what is on the net. And if there was a
committee I think that the people who use the net would post
their opinions of how the rules should be anyway.
Another thing is that I think that this discussion of the
future of the net-administration is rather healthy for the sake
that it proofs that the net is alive and the net-people
concerns about the subject.
I would like to give my proposal to how the net-rules should
be:
1) Before posting anything think twice whether the thing
you're about to post is in general interrest or only
interresting to people at a local net. Only spread the
"stuff" in the net where it belongs.
2) Only send the information to the newsgroup where is
belongs. If you see multiple choices then pick the
group where you think it belongs most.
3) Avoid sending the information more than once.
4) Instead of voting for or against creation of new
newsgroups, the mail directly to the person or
institute that proposed the newsgroup, and tell them
whether you think this is a good idea or not. Then
let the proposer post the results to the net, and
create the newsgroup if there is common interrest in
the subject. (Otherwise it's against common sense to
create newsgroups that has a very limited target
group).
5) Before replying to anybody, look all the relevant
replies and follow-ups through, then if you opinion
still not covered by these you can send your reply,
if you think that the reply is of general interest.
I think that if everybody followed these simple rules there
would be no need for a committee. Of cause the net can't
protect itself from people who break these rules or any other
rules by intention, in other way that close down the connection
to the sites where it happens (a really hard way to do things,
but the only way, God forbid that this should ever happen...)
all for now.
Kim Chr. Madsen.
Institute of Computer Science
University of Copenhagen Denmark.laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (06/03/84)
Comittees are a bad idea. Having all these damn votes in net.news.group caused me to unsubscribe to net.news.group a long time ago. If the posters would put: "proposed group net.goats-and-garlic -- vote" in their titles (or stick the vote in the title as well) then I could get by with my 'n' key. Alas this requires intelligence on the part of netnews voters and I don't think that we can wait for them to develop it. The discussion on tiredgroups looks like it is going to take a long while. In the meanwhile, what about net.news.vote. I propose this as an experiement. It is MY proposal and here are the rules. 1. I am going to temporarily re-subscribe to net.news.group. 2. If I get one ``yes'' vote in net.news.group I am going to COUNT IT AS A NO. 3. If I get one ``no'' vote in net.news.group I am going to COUNT IT AS A YES. 4. If it is posted to multiple groups (like net.news) then the penalty will be multiplied by the number of groups it is posted to. 5. If you send me mail saying ``yes'' or ``no'' then I am going to count it is TWO YESes or TWO NOs. The object of the game is to see if people can actually refrain from posting votes and send it by mail. If we get a negative score out of the whole deal then we know that usenetters can't follow directions even when it is clearly in their own interest to do so and thus can give up believing that they will act reasonably when you suggest any proposal. If, on the other hand, you never see another vote for net.news.votes then the experiment will be considered a success and these rules should be propegated for all ``let's create a new newsgroup'' discussions. Now, for all of you who do not want to vote, but also want to get your $0.75 worth of ``why I want/do not want net.news.votes'' I have a solution. I am going to make up a mailing list of everybody who replies to me and ASKS TO BE PUT ON IT. (default is OFF, that is -- you won't see any discussion unless you ASK FOR IT.) And all the mail that I receive on this subject is going to go out on the mailing list. (ALL of it. Without editing. What you send me everybody who ASKS is going to read. Just like usenet, except you only get the interested parties.) This is it. discussion, howls of dislike, praise, promises of money -- ALL BY MAIL. or I guarantee I WILL penalise you for it. And if we can't get a better solution out of this then we deserve the Politburo. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/04/84)
Kim: I'm only going to touch on a couple of points. Most of the disagreements seem to be philosophical and I don't feel that ranting is worth it at this stage. > 2) If it is that easy to ignore them, then why should > they be there. I thought it was meant to be a group > who should stand guard on the net and see that no one > broke the net-laws. If it's easy to ignore them and > send whatever you like on the net anyway, then why > bother have a group. They should be there because they can give guidance to the network. Just because they can be ignored doesn't mean they will or should be. The real advantage of the system is that we are bringing together the people who know the network best to help those that don't know it as well use it efficiently. At the same time, if they get out of hand there are things that can be done with it. Look at it another way: Much of this committee already exists in an underground form. In almost any discussion of policy on the net certain voices are heard from and listened to. If we are doing nothing else, we are legitimizing this group of extremely hardworking people by giving them some recognition. Maybe committee was a bad word. Maybe what we want to do is create the position of 'elder statesmen' for the network for these people. > 3) I think that even the most well-meant group or > committee gets somewhat corrupt when they are given > power. (I usually don't think bad about people, but > I had bad expirience in this field...) You seem to have a lot less confidence in people than I do. I've had some rather productive groups. The emily-post group I headed (a comittee if I ever saw one) was very productive and got a lot of good work done in a relatively short period of time (the main delay was my lack of time to do the actually development). It CAN be done, and it can be done successfully. >You asked for other alternatives, instead of a committee which >already exist as anonymous spirits that guide this network. My >alternative is that the people who use the net should make >the laws of the use of it. After all it's concerning all of us, >how the net works and what is on the net. And if there was a >committee I think that the people who use the net would post >their opinions of how the rules should be anyway. Nice idea. Realistic? I don't think so. How do we implement it? >I would like to give my proposal to how the net-rules should >be: > > 1) Before posting anything think twice whether the thing > you're about to post is in general interrest or only > interresting to people at a local net. Only spread the > "stuff" in the net where it belongs. > > 2) Only send the information to the newsgroup where is > belongs. If you see multiple choices then pick the > group where you think it belongs most. > > 3) Avoid sending the information more than once. > > 4) Instead of voting for or against creation of new > newsgroups, the mail directly to the person or > institute that proposed the newsgroup, and tell them > whether you think this is a good idea or not. Then > let the proposer post the results to the net, and > create the newsgroup if there is common interrest in > the subject. (Otherwise it's against common sense to > create newsgroups that has a very limited target > group). > > 5) Before replying to anybody, look all the relevant > replies and follow-ups through, then if you opinion > still not covered by these you can send your reply, > if you think that the reply is of general interest. Hmm... This sounds vaguely familiar. Have you been cribbing notes from my emily-post? (*grin*). Seriously, These goals, while laudible, are not system administration, they are 'ettiquette'. And they are completely off the subject that started all of this -- creation and deletion of newsgroups. #4 has been tried and usually fails miserably because the people responding with the votes seem to send them to the net regardless of what is asked of them. >I think that if everybody followed these simple rules there >would be no need for a committee. I disagree. The net would work better, true, but it still doesn't solve the basic problem of what newsgroups should be supported and how to create and delete them. -- From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach {amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242 I'm sure I have my death ray in here somewhere...
alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (06/06/84)
net.news.votes is wrong. Votes are supposed to be MAILED to the author of the proposal, not submitted to the net.