Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hal!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc,news.groups,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: The Requested Presentation of Quota Based News Control
Message-ID: <2811@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 22:48:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncoast.2811
Posted: Mon Jul  6 22:48:59 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jul-87 02:47:47 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <153@tmsoft.UUCP> <285@klinzhai.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh
Lines: 72
Xref: utgpu news.admin:566 news.misc:598 news.groups:1102 news.sysadmin:251

The problems with sources via non-net channels are:

(1) Mail is often even more limited than news.  This includes the VERY
common occurrence of mailers that choke on messages longer than 60K; this
cannot be solved by saying "replace the mailer" because the companies that
provide the mailers don't supply either source or alternatives.  (When's the
last time you tried to get Microsoft to change something in Xenix for you? --
remember that Xenix is the most widely used UN*X variant.)

(2) Mailing media is wonderful -- assuming that there is a standard.  Alas,
my Pixel won't read IBM PC floppies (although there may be an upgrade for
it -- the software is 3 years old).  And there doesn't seem to be much (if any)
compatibility in cartridge tape drives.  (Not to mention $30 for ONE cart!)
Under these circumstances, the use of UUCP channels is an advantage --
as witness the AT&T Toolchest, which is UUCP-ONLY distribution.  Remember
that not all machines use the same backup methods, many machines don't HAVE
9-track tape drives and there isn't enough justification for spending mega $$$
for an add-on drive.

Frankly, the volume of the Usenet will continue to grow no matter what.  The
benefits of moderation are the cutting of chaff and the chance to let the
truly useful stuff through in its place.  (It does have its potential pit-
falls, but the first time I get a program source -- personal, not c.s.m
stuff; I *do* write my own -- will be the last and I'll switch to another
network.)

The biggest PROBLEM with moderation is that a moderator who is highly
opinionated can savage the net.  Not as much with the sources groups --
but if the moderator of, say, rec.arts.movies.reviews, disliked a particular
genre of movies enough to pan reviews of those movies or to suppress favorable
reviews of them, I think I can speak for the net in saying that that moderator
is not the best one for that group.  (NOTE:  I am not actually saying anything
about the moderator of rec.arts.movies.reviews; I simply chose a newsgroup
whose subject is basically opinion.)

The proper solution to this is to have moderators chosen by the net at large;
candidates would have to have a history of fairness in the field they would
be moderating (say 6 mos. to 1 year).  Of course, it has its own problems
as well:  moderator elections as popularity contests, or "pro-`sf'"/"pro-
`sci-fi'" lobbies (to select a recent argument on the net), etc.  Still, it
would help to insure that moderators were "straight".  (BTW, as "ombudsman"
you failed this test, Bob:  mapping all the binaries groups to "talk.bizarre"
is a good way to get a large percentage of the net riled at you.  And what
are PC users to do given that there are umpty-dump different compilers for
different languages around, and *none* standard?  Rot, perhaps, while the
smug people with compilers STANDARD on their machines sneer at them?)

This is the same problem that ALWAYS comes up -- when a {network, country,
etc.} reaches a critical point, there is suddenly NO working system of
government possible.  SOMEONE is guaranteed to be upset no matter what.
Moderators are intended to judge by quality, quotas by quantity; in a system
which is intended to transmit information, quality seems to be the more
important consideration.  This is the reason that moderators have always been
preferred over quotas, which will pass false or misleading information (or
out-and-out garbage, such as pet care techniques in rec.autos) if it comes in
before correct information, and will reject correct information if it comes in
after the quota has been met.

I think I've been vociferous enough by now.  Hopefully, I've managed to
explain the reasons behind the current system and to explore some possibilities
for alternatives; I leave it to you, the net at large, to decide what the best
solution(s) are.

++Brandon
-- 
Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc
ncoast Public Access UN*X, +1 216 781 6201 -- we have alt.all (email for info)

aXcess Company		    cbosgd			   \
6615 Center St. #A1-105	    {ames,harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc > !ncoast!allbery
Mentor, OH 44060-4101	    {well,ihnp4,pyramid}!hoptoad   /
+1 216 974 9210		    necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu