Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!david From: david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.politics Subject: Re: Flirting with Anarchy Message-ID: <2354@ukma.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 12:28:18 EST Article-I.D.: ukma.2354 Posted: Sat Nov 2 12:28:18 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 09:13:02 EST References: <431@mot.UUCP> Reply-To: david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) Distribution: net Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences Lines: 52 Keywords: USENET, fascism(;-), laissez faire Xref: watmath net.news.group:4213 net.politics:11771 In article <431@mot.UUCP>, al@mot.UUCP wonders: >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? Ideally, yes. > 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. Sorry, it doesn't. We have this group of sites (known as the backbone) which agrees (somewhat) on the newsgroups will be carried by them. Any decision carried out by the backbone CANNOT be considered a local action. > 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? Yes they do. > 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. The directors are there to hold back total anarchy. It seems obvious (to me, apparently to a lot of other people also) that allowing newsgroups to be created freely is inviting a COMPLEX mess. Somebody gets an idea for a topic, issues a newgroup, the newsgroup gets created everywhere, maybe he's concientious and announces it somewhere, but people miss the announcement or something. (Or it's been 2 months since the announcement and nobody remembers the original idea) Now you've got this newsgroup 'net.something' and few people know the purpose. What's going to get posted. (A related problem is the creation of mod.computers.gould -- it was created under the assumption that it talked about gould computers -- I don't know the topic of that mailing list but I know it isn't gould computers)... Or maybe the creator is a dunderhead and doesn't realize that he should tell people what the group is supposed to be about. Remember the Standard Keyword Complaint (a particular keyword is not generally meaningful)? What if the creator is an incredibly strange person and his name makes a lot of sense to him but to nobody else? (i.e. the arpa mailing list 'sun-spots' can be about sun computers, astronomy, or ham radio) Ok. So we have Spaf keeping a list of newsgroups and descriptions. And he posts it regularly to remind people of the purposes of everything. That is helpful, right? -- David Herron, cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET. English is a second language to me -- Baby talk was my first language.