Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin Subject: Re: Spaf's 2nd Reply to EndOfSourcesList+AnnouncementOfNetOmbudsman Message-ID: <286@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Tue, 7-Jul-87 00:31:58 EDT Article-I.D.: brandx.286 Posted: Tue Jul 7 00:31:58 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jul-87 03:52:26 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <16003@gatech.gatech.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 77 Keywords: solving the moderation bottleneck Summary: a few general observations Xref: mnetor news.groups:1186 news.misc:709 news.stargate:235 news.sysadmin:281 news.admin:632 In article <16003@gatech.gatech.edu>, spaf@gatech.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: > .... [Surely you read it and kept a copy around.] This note was an excellant example of the kinds of notes I generally get from the backbone. If you go back and re-read it, you will find that it alludes to many things being unreasonable, impractical, inconsistant, etc, but does not point at any specific thing and say that about it. This has been done neither on the net nor in mail. Queries have been made, responses have been given, and then totally different queries get made. I maintain that my position is internally consistant and interested parties can read my most recent presentation that was posted on the 5th of July (and available via request by mail). It also alludes to a difference in experience, but no where actually demonstrates the relevance of that experience to the current discussion by drawing on it to support some alternative. 200 lines constitutes 8 typed double-spaced (on a typewriter, not a word-processor) pages of text. Anyone who doesn't have the time to read 8 pages of text is likely to be too busy to ponder the pros and cons of what I am saying. The reader's digest version is: 1) I believe that moderated streams do not necessarily mean higher quality, comparing moderated and unmoderated streams is more like comparing apples and oranges. 2) I believe that current problems with load did not justify the current move away from unmoderated streams. 3) I believe that the alternative backbone solution simply solved the problem by going back to the beginning of time when the net was new and young. Once they grow to a size comparable to the current set up, they will be faced with exactly the same problems as the current backbone (and so far I have heard no indication that they are planning any better alternatives once they get there). 4) I believe that the sources groups are key in this discussion because, of all the moderated groups, the sources groups are special in that they have: a large constituency, no unmoderated stream was set aside as alternatives (most moderated groups also have alternative unmoderated streams nearby), and they were converted without following the procedures that were followed in the conversion of other groups. 5) I believe that no machine can or should be forced to carry anything it doesn't want to, but that the machine must develop ways of determining what it does and doesn't want. As long as we rely on ``gentlemans's agreements'' there will always be disputes over proper and improper use of the net. 6) I believe that in the past I have been responsive to comments from the backbone, both by responding via mail and actually acting differently based on what seemed to make sense, such as hao!wood's presentation of why the mailing list idea was inconsistant current customs in the use of computer mail. 7) I believe that all of the above is already on the record, that I have been speaking on these matters since the sources groups went moderated, and that even I am tired of hearing all of this. Hence, although I am seldom inclined to let pass plain misrepresentations of what I have said in the past, don't expect much more from me until I see signs that people are really interested in discussing ideas (preferably via mail). Anyone who is interested in being a translator between me and spaf will be welcome with open arms (although a necessary prerequisite would be that you can make sense of both his postings and mine). Incidently, I have recieved notes from such people, some of them even cc'd to spaf, so they do exist. -- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) p.s., In a separate message, kre@munnari.oz claims that I have misrepresented his views. Since they are, after all, his views and since his current interpretation is consistant with what was sent (although it puts a less kind light on it than my interpretation which was also consistant with what he sent), I am certainly willing to yield the presentation of his position to him. p.p.s., Someone or other called me a fool. Doubtless you have seen enough of my postings to imagine how I would have responded if I had bothered. I figure good manners only requires that I be less immoderate than the person I am replying to. Some people have gone out of their way to give me alot of leeway.