Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1.chuqui 4/7/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: If I see one more yes vote, I'll whimper! Message-ID: <1019@nsc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 11:23:36 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.1019 Posted: Mon Jun 4 11:23:36 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 06:31:16 EDT References: <346@diku.UUCP> Organization: The Warlocks Cave Lines: 96 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...