Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!hao!gatech!spaf From: spaf@gatech.edu (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin Subject: Re: EndOfSourcesList+AnnouncementOfNetOmbudsman Message-ID: <16003@gatech.gatech.edu> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 11:14:27 EDT Article-I.D.: gatech.16003 Posted: Mon Jul 6 11:14:27 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jul-87 03:50:40 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> Organization: Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech Lines: 85 Keywords: solving the moderation bottleneck Xref: mnetor news.groups:1176 news.misc:700 news.stargate:228 news.sysadmin:274 news.admin:622 First off, many thanks to those of you who wrote to me. It is encouraging to know that there are people who realize that visibility is not always the same as responsibility, and that difficult choices sometimes have to be made. The mail also contained some good ideas and suggestions that I (and others) will definitely investigate. Some things to consider: 1) Mr. Webber is an intelligent, articulate individual. To brand him as stupid is not only off-base, but is resorting to the wrong kind of argument. Just because he ignores some reasoned arguments and will not change his mind does not necessarily mean he is ignorant or stupid. 2) I do not believe Mr. Webber is "evil", nor do I believe he has malicious intent with his ideas. Please do not accuse him of such. 3) Mr. Webber is rather rude and condescending at times (as many of you have found out based on his replies to your mail [that I have seen]), and as demonstrated by his threat to post into moderated groups without moderator approval. We should restrain from responding in kind, however, since not only does it *not* help the matter, it also will goad him on if he is (as some suspect) a "closet flamer." 4) Judging from the mail I have received, the *vast* majority of people on the net believe moderation is important and works (usually -- it is recognized as still evolving, and it may not be the only or "best" solution), and who would be very angry should someone try to defeat that mechanism (as I was when I first replied to Bob's article). Out of nearly 200 mail messages so far, I have had only one message against the current approach to moderation. If such an outcry had arisen *against* moderation, the renaming, or other recent actions that some individuals have vociferously denounced, I am sure they would not have occurred. Such a weight of opinion should serve to convince any *reasonable* individual. 5) Most of us, and especially the "cabal," appreciate suggestions and comments presented in a reasonable manner. In fact, they are welcomed -- that is how the net has grown and evolved. On the other hand, ideas presented along with threats, insults, or a lack of basis in reality tend to be ignored. Some good suggestions have been made in the context of this whole debate, and I hope that some of them will result in improvements. From my mail (and experience), I also must conclude that the majority of sys admins pay more attention when someone pays the bills to test their own ideas and show their convictions (like the "alt" backbone and UUNET), when people put in effort to develop their own code and invest the energy to try something new (like Stargate), and when sites and personnel make significant investments to keep the net running (e.g., the backbone). Sys admins do not seem to appreciate someone with little or no demonstrated experience or expertise suddenly appearing on the scene, proclaiming that the current system is wrong and that everyone should do it his way. 6) Most people seem to recognize that the net has changed and is changing with time and volume. The direction the net takes is unclear, but reverting to the "good old days" is impractical for the net as a whole. Last of all, let me observe that Mr. Webber has been arguing a number of impractical and sometimes contradictory positions, often at extreme length, in various news.* groups and in mail over the last few months. He either does not understand or will not accept the arguments (mailed and posted) of the people who do not agree with his views *and have the experience to know what they're talking about*. To my knowledge, no one else agrees with his views. (If anyone *other* than Mr. Webber can even explain those views to me, please do so! I've been getting his mail and postings for months now and all I can get out of it is that he thinks some kind of quotas should be used instead of moderation, and that sites should be forced to carry unmoderated groups.) His continued promulgation and defense of his views may now be more a matter of ego than reasoned justification, or perhaps he just enjoys the attention. In either case, may I suggest that we cease debating him and allow him to either develop a clearer explanation of what he wants (and succinct, Bob -- no more 200+ line diatribes), or demonstrate a working system that can convince us it is better that what we are using now? To do otherwise is to increase the noise level of the net, and perhaps add to the aggravation of the more responsible individuals who read these groups. -- Gene Spafford Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: spaf@gatech.gatech.edu uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!spaf