Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!harvard!spdcc!m2c!ulowell!page
From: page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin
Subject: the USENET problems
Message-ID: <1496@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Date: Thu, 9-Jul-87 18:33:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulowell.1496
Posted: Thu Jul  9 18:33:02 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 07:09:10 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <15982@gatech.gatech.edu> <6948@shemp.UCLA.EDU> <133@hippo.UUCP> <10764@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Organization: University of Lowell
Lines: 134
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1210 news.misc:733 news.stargate:243 news.sysadmin:293 news.admin:660

[This article is over 100 lines and contains no flames.  It even
contains constructive proposals.  Think about them, please.]

Whenever someone gets mad at "the backbone" and flame about it, there
is always someone who posts this "response," or one like it:

	If you don't like the current (foo), start your own.

While this might be satisfying for the poster, it means nothing.
Sure it would solve the problem, but that's not the way to solve it.
Isn't it better to listen to the complaints-hidden-in-flames and
respond constructively?  Fragmenting USENET into dozens of international
subnets is a waste of resources.

I certainly don't have the answer to either side's comments, but
am interested in a solution.  Attacking/defending the backbone does
not help.

So what problems do we have?

1. The namespace (newsgroup names) are effectively controlled by
   Gene Spafford's checkgroups message.  It synchronizes everyone
   to the same set of newsgroups, and only the admins who really
   understand the net will bother to keep groups that don't appear
   in the checkgroups message.  Then again, those admins have to
   rely on their upstream sites to do the same.

2. Moderation doesn't work correctly because it introduces delays
   and is unreliable, since it uses point-to-point mail to get to
   the carbon-based moderator, who may or may not be there
   (witness mod.sources).

3. There's too much traffic (almost 2MB/day now) and much of it is
   noise.

Those are probably the three major problems; the rest are subsets
and offshoots of these.

Many would say that (1) isn't a problem at all.  A central authority
is great, it keeps the world in sync.  Since it is made up of people
who truly care about USENET, and is a somewhat large body, we can
assume that dictums from the backbone are generally good for the net.
Sure USENET is an anarchy, but most (>99%) of the site admins will
go along with the backbone, for various reasons (no need to list them).

reid@decwrl.UUCP (Brian Reid) points out that:
>... nntp and PC Pursuit have made the whole concept of the backbone quite
>obsolete.

Which really reduces the 'backbone' to a group of site admins who want
to steer USENET a certain way.  It is not a coincidence that many
of the people in this group are also people who work hard outside
the backbone for USENET (like Rick maintaining the news 2.11 software,
Henry working on C news, Mark coordinating the UUCP Project, Gene
publishing documentation, Brian collecting arbitron data, etc).  Of
course there are others in the 'backbone' who do little else for
the UUCP/UNIX/USENET community, but that doesn't mean they don't care
about the community.  Some admins on the backbone, I dare say, are
there soley because their employers are generous enough to put up
a lot of money to maintain UUCP connections.  Their main interest is
in keeping the news flow below a certain level.  Still nothing wrong
with that; they're indirectly concerned with USENET in that they
want more info and less noise.

It is possible that there are people on the backbone who are there
soley to feel like they have control, power, influence, etc.  Maybe
*all* of the admins feel that to some degree.  I suppose it's part
of the society we live in; but I digress, and point out that they are
probably not any kind of major influence on USENET.

Now that I hope I have defined the backbone in non-emotional terms,
may I suggest we drop the name and change it to something more realistic?
How about USENET Steering Committee?  Also, how about opening the
group to a (somewhat) larger body?  There are people (admins, non-admins)
who care about making USENET better who are not on the 'backbone' list.


The answer to (2) is more complex.  I don't think anyone is truly
satisfied with the way moderation works now.  Most USENET readers
and posters probably agree that moderation in general is a good idea,
but the current implementation makes it difficult for posters to get
information to readers.

The answer is to come up with a different way to do moderation.  I don't
have solid proposals on what that "different way" should be.  I'd like
to see a new newsgroup that deals with this question.  When a good
proposal can be hammered out, implementation can begin.  B news 2.12 maybe.


The third problem is due to the increase in the number of UNIX systems
in use now.  Since we can't get rid of these new UNIX sites, we have
to find some other ways to decrease the 'noise' traffic.  Some are
software based, like the 50% included text limit or the 4-line signature
limit.  Although controversial (and without test data to demonstrate
any effectiveness), they are a step towards limiting unneeded text.
Another solution is better user education and admin education.

Probably the best solution is to break the bulk of USENET into
regional networks, with regional group 'forwarders' who send the best
(mostly signal, little noise) postings to the larger nets (country
net, world net, etc).  An ideal implementation would have stratified
nets, with some limit on the level (like I can post to the ULowell
net, Massachusetts net and New England net, but not the USA net,
the North American net, the Earth net or anything higher).  Appropriate
postings that I make to the (foo) group in New England might get sent
to the USA net for countrywide distribution.

In some ways it's like the company newsletter, where an article gets
picked up by the town weekly paper and the regional daily paper.  Maybe
USA Today picks it up for national distribution.  Maybe UPI and AP pick
it up for distribution to other countries and networks, etc.  In other
ways it's not like the company newsletter, etc, but you get the idea.
As you go up in levels, you get reduced noise in newsgroups.  You'll
still have netwide discussions (like the future of news, unix, etc),
but when you come right down to it, there's no need for netwide
discussions on (foo) when most of it is noise.

Opponents who say "But what if somebody in Texas says something
that I would otherwise be interested in?  Leave it the way it is!"
aren't being constructive in reducing noise (or finding some way
to make this regional net scheme work).  My quick reply is "what
if some newspaper in Texas says something that I would otherwise
be interested in?"  You can't read everything, most of it would
be noise, right?  Well, look around you.  Welcome to USENET.

I'd like to see a new newsgroup dedicated to discussing/solving the
traffic issue as well as one for the moderation problem.

Reasonable comments welcomed.  Flames OK too (email, don't post) as
long as there's some light somewhere amongst the heat.

..Bob
-- 
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept.   page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}