Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.politics
Subject: Re: Flirting with Anarchy
Message-ID: <831@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 14:16:55 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.831
Posted: Mon Nov  4 14:16:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 05:21:46 EST
References: <431@mot.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 41
Keywords: USENET, fascism(;-), laissez faire
Xref: linus net.news.group:3657 net.politics:11166

In article <431@mot.UUCP> al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes:
>*
>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?

	Only if the node sends *advance* notice to all downstream
sites that it is doing so to give them a fair chance to find alternate
feeds. The problem with this sort of thing is that different sites
have vastly different ideas on what is appropriate, for instance
Hopkins has closed the net.group newsgroup! And I have heard some
sites complaining about some *technical* groups like net.sources.
A second difficulty is that a large part of the atteactiveness of the
net to the readers is the wide variety of subjects, including the
non-technical subjects. I, for one, would read the news much less if
groups like net.books and net.sf-lovers disappeared, and I would not
be as opposed to my company dropping the net completely as I would be
under current conditions.
>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
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa