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.