Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site diku.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!mcvax!diku!kimcm
From: kimcm@diku.UUCP (Kim Chr. Madsen)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: If I see one more yes vote, I'll whimper!
Message-ID: <346@diku.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Jun-84 05:25:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: diku.346
Posted: Sat Jun  2 05:25:56 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 08:39:47 EDT
Organization: Institute of Datalogy, University of Copenhagen
Lines: 74

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.