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.