Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mot.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!mnetor!mot!al From: al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.politics Subject: Flirting with Anarchy Message-ID: <431@mot.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 18:45:40 EST Article-I.D.: mot.431 Posted: Fri Nov 1 18:45:40 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 22:02:08 EST Distribution: net Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ 85282 Lines: 19 Keywords: USENET, fascism(;-), laissez faire Xref: lsuc net.news.group:1444 net.politics:1790 * Does the net really need people to keep track of which groups are supposed to exist and to prune away unauthorized groups? Isn't it sufficient for each node to decide whether it wants to receive or transmit each group? When there is no interest in a group, nodes will independently cease transmitting it, it will fragment and whither away. If a node is concerned about high bills, it will unilaterally decide how to reduce its participation. It seems like it all should take care of itself BY LOCAL ACTIONS ONLY. Why are there directors on the net? Why do people issue rmgroups to others? Why is it necessary to vote on things? Does not a node (the entity footing the bill) vote by deciding what to carry? Has it been found that this kind of anarchy does not work for the net and some central control is necessary? It is not obvious to me that it is; but then, I am not one of the old-timers on the net. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A 85282 seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al, ihnp4!mot!al, ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al --------------------------------------------------------------------------