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...