Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group,net.flame
Subject: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds
Message-ID: <6101@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 19:59:11 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6101
Posted: Wed Oct 30 19:59:11 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 19:59:11 EST
References: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> <1817@hao.UUCP>, <1078@trwrdc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 115

> And I suppose that the privelage to create newsgroups should be reserved
> to the system administrators so that those obnoxious bozos won't propagate
> their drivel?  Who is this "we" that you speak of?  Is this the royal "we."
> Do you speak for all site administrators or is this your own personal creedo?

He certainly speaks for a lot of us, especially on the backbone.

> The existance of the net is NOT dependent upon how practical or effecient
> you might perceive it to be.  It is reliant only upon generous backbone
> sites that will shell out the bucks for long-distance high-volume calls.

In other words, it is very much dependent on how practical and efficient
the backbone sites perceive it to be.  Speaking as site admin of one of
them, on the whole I support what Spaf is doing.  The disparity between
our generosity and the demands being placed on it is growing.

> I doubt the net will ever "collapse" under it's own weight as
> long as there are people to post articles and people who will read them.

And sites that will pay to transmit them -- don't forget that.  Collapse
of the network is something that most of us consider a serious possibility.

> And since WHEN is it necessary to beat people over the heads and force them to
> obey a centralized set of bureacratic rules?  ...

Actually, since the beginning.  The semi-orderly structure of newsgroups
you see before you was not a happy accident.

> Perhaps the fact that people WON'T obey tells you that you shouldn't be
> expecting them to do so.

Fine, if they won't pay any attention to us, why should we subsidize them?
Do you really want all the backbone sites to say "to hell with it" and stop
forwarding news?  Bear in mind that there will be few volunteers lining up
for the privilege of paying exorbitant phone bills for your benefit.

> And how can we trust any central body of administrators to perform the will
> of the community any better than the community itself?

Who's talking about the will of the community here?  The will of the
community will not pay my phone bills.

> What you are willing or not willing to pay for effects sites down the pike
> that rely on you for news.  How about being a little more considerate of
> the needs of people in general?  Your site may pay the bills, but that
> doesn't mean you can ignore the needs of everyone else.

And whose needs are you ignoring?  Maybe we have more important uses for
that money than paying phone bills with it.  (Incidentally, don't you
think that the starving people in Ethiopia have more need for, say, the
top half of your paycheck than you do?)

> There are those words again... "we" and "enforced."  May I suggest that the
> rules of the net be enforced IN SOFTWARE according to a commonly held set
> of rules?  Voting could be accomplished automatically.  That would make
> a fun project.

Actually, it would make a large and difficult project.  That aside, I am
all in favor of this if there is a fee of, say, $20 per vote, the proceeds
to go towards the backbone's phone bills.  If you aren't going to help with
our financial problems, don't expect us to live and die by your votes.  That
would be -- to correctly apply a frequently-misused word -- fascism.  That is,
the notion that we should cooperate for the common good no matter how much it
hurts, whether we like it or not.  I am quite sure that the net is capable
of voting itself unlimited quantities of bread and circuses at our expense.
Forget it.

> But Spafford alone doesn't have a mandate from the community to enforce
> them.  The police officer does.  ...

He doesn't?  Prove it.  Please don't say that he hasn't won an election or
something like that -- neither has your local police department.  If a vote
really were held to confirm your police department's mandate, I suspect it
would win... and I suspect Spaf would too.  Considering that the alternative
(in both cases) is anarchic collapse.

> ...  Does the
> wildcat creation of a set of useful newsgroups justify the almost
> punitive action of removing them?

No (although I hope you aren't claiming net.bizarre is useful!), but it
does justify firmly telling them to go back and go through the proper
procedures (with the associated chance of failure) just like everyone else.

> No no no no no no!  Slowing down the rate of growth is NOT the same as
> excersising control over newsgroup creation.  You regulate flow by adapting
> the network topology to the flow.  Build in more redundancy and coordinate
> calls between sites more effectivly.  By controlling newsgroup creation you
> also control newsgroup content.

Right, improving the overall signal/noise ratio at the expense of the trash.
Please explain what you mean by "adapting the network topology" and "build
in more redundancy" (the redundancy in the existing net improves reliability
at the cost of still higher phone bills!) and "coordinate calls more
effectively".  Ten to one we've heard it all before, and it doesn't work.
Or else it demands still deeper pockets on our parts.  I agree that slowing
down the growth is not the same as controlling newsgroup creation, because
the latter probably will not suffice for the former.  It's probably a
necessary first step, though.

> But this is like saying that we should know the utlitarian value of something
> before using it.

Yup, it's like saying that I should know the usefulness of something before
I spend a lot of money on it.  What a terrible thought.  How many mink tea
cozies do you own?

> The only reason newsgroups are "flitting OUT of existance" is because some
> site administrator thinks he has to enforce the rules to the letter or the
> world will come crashing down around our heads.

Yeah, and in the long run, overall, he's probably right.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry