Disenfranchising non-Usenet sites from Usenet votes
J Lee Jaap
The amount of traffic doesn't change the relative costs of newsgroups and
mailing lists. That is, a mailing list with 30 readers costs less than a
newsgroup that 30 people on the net want to read, whether there are three
or three hundred messages per day. A mailing list with 3000 readers costs
more than a newsgroup that 3000 people on the net read, whether there are
three or three hundred messages per day.
Sure, someone pays for those feeds. They also pay for the mail, and with mail
you get one copy going through (X) sites per reader, instead of one copy
going through every site no matter how many people read it.
The exact location of the breakeven point is a matter of discussion, but the
volume in the group doesn't change that point.
The volume does make a difference if a reader doesn't keep up (i.e.,
goes on vacation or suddenly gets badly sick). The mail spool fills
up quicker with a higher-volume mailinglist. Granted, that's bad
manners to the other users and sysadmins on his system, but (l)users
do that. Mail doesn't automatically expire.
You need to integrate shared space usage over time to get system impact.
But I agree that mailinglists are a good place to start to build
readership for an unproven topic, if you can get an admin to accept
the load.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L....@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not necessarily speaking for, AS&M Inc,
at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Richard M. Hartman
>The "vote" is a mechanism.
Yes.
>"Democracy" is a set of principles.
Yes.
>The two come together in one package.
No.
The concept of "advisory votes" already exists. If we're trying to
pick between "poll" and "vote" and make some sort of statement about
the political organization of Usenet based upon that, go ahead an
use the term "vote". But it is a non-binding vote -- an advisory
vote -- Usenet is not, and never will be, a democracy. Each host
is it's own site, with it's own administrator and it's own "house
rules". Usenet is an emergent phenomenon from the voluntary cooperation
of these many sites. The key word here is "voluntary". We have
a bunch of little fiefdoms, each ruled by their own dictator. Any
appearance of democracy caused by the use of the term "vote" is
purely imaginary. So it is best to keep in mind that not all
voting paradigms imply a democracy.
-Richard Hartman
har...@uLogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Disco isn't dead... ...it's just in witness protection!
Peter da Silva
> You never explain the basis for your destinction between (your latest
> euphamism) "usenet proper", and the rest of the net.
Usenet is the set of sites that use B-news compatible transfer mechanisms
to pass news, and present the namespace I will euphemistically refer to as
being "managed" by the process that takes place in this group.
> Your last attempt was to claim that some sites had a prior legal claim
> to usenet than other sites; you have backed off that claim,
I made no such claim. Your lawyer's mind inferred it from the less nitpicky
language I used.
> but (i) you
> have never offered a meaningful definition of what is a "usenet proper"
> site,
See above.
> (ii) have never offered an explanation for changing the
> guidelines.
What change? I'm not changing anything. I'm simply explaining how the net
works. If you don't understand how it works, you're just wasting your time.
> No, you're offering your own theory of they way you think usenet SHOULD
> work.
Yes I am, no you're not, yes I am, no you're not. Give me a break.
Usenet works because thousands of individual system administrators spending
their time, often without recompense, making it work. It works because they
have been doing this for the past getting-on-for-fifteen years. If you haven't
been part of this process, you have no basis (legal, rational, historical, or
any other basis) for making assertions about what I'm doing.
> You're attempting to substitute history for rationality.
The guidelines are simply an informal attempt to capture the mechanism that
has evolved, and is still evolving, in an attempt to keep Usenet functioning
in the face of increasing traffic and coverage. They are a snapshot of
history, not a legal document. They are no more and no less than that. If
you don't understand and accept that simple fact you're going to get very
frustrated.
> The problem you face is that usenet currently places no limit on who
> can vote in CFV ballots,
Charlie, you don't know what Usenet is. You haven't the vaguest idea what
Usenet is. And you're pointing to a set of *guidelines* (not laws, not
rules, but guidelines) and saying "this is usenet".
It's not.
It's just a document describing the way things have been done, and what has
worked in the past, in various polls that have been accepted as meaningful
indications of the likely impact of various proposed groups.
> >Doesn't stop the other system from creating a group (echo, mlist, notesfile,
> >etcetera) under their own rules with their own guidelines and management
> >techniques.
> But any such new group won't have any of the traffic of the usenet
> original newsgroup.
Original newsgroup? What original newsgroup? The Usenet group isn't the
original in this case: the echo or mailing list or sig is. Hey, maybe I
should complain that there isn't a Compuserve SIG for Minix-386 so when
I create a minix-386 group it won't have the traffic from that sig.
These are separate nets, with separate management tools, separate name
spaces, separate user populations, and so on. They don't reflect each
other. They're not leeches hanging off Usenet as you're implying.
> I don't think this can work both ways. Certainly you could have (say)
> several mailing lists gated into a single group, but where do new
> postings to that newsgroup get sent? To all input streams? To none?
Depends on who does the gateways. You can set followup to poster, for
example. Or you can just pull stuff out based on keywords.
> Did I ever say they weren't guidelines? You seem to think that calling
> something a "guideline" means that it carries no weight whatsoever.
These guidelines carry very little weight.
> To me, a "guideline" defines how things are USUALLY done;
Yep.
> practice can
> deviate from the guideline in exceptional circumstances, but there
> would have to be some explanation of why this was being done.
Sure. I've given you that explanation. You choose to ignore it.
> >And can be (and have been) ignored in any specific vote if there
> >is any reason to believe the result doesn't reflect the actual readership
> >of Usenet proper.
> Sure the guidelines can be ignored in a specific case. But you are
> proposing to CHANGE the guidelines, not IGNORE them.
Nope. I'm not PROPOSING anything. I'm explaining how things work. Right here,
and right now. If the guidelines don't match reality, that's unfortunate, but
you can't change reality to match the guidelines.
> You seem to think there are another set of principles which always take
> precedence over the guidelines; let's call them "super-guidelines."
No, let's call them "the opinions of the people who actually do the work
and make Usenet run". You want to change those opinions? Fine.
> There is nothing wrong with changing the guidelines per se, but you
> must be able to explain and defend your proposed changes. It is
> plainly insufficient to claim that "it has always been done this way",
> because the guidelines clearly indicate that it is usually (perhaps not
> always) done another way.
Nah, the guidelines indicate that the person who wrote them never considered
that someone would actually treat them as the Constitution of the United
Networks of Usenet instead of applying common sense. Of course only people
on Usenet should be voting. People *off* usenet don't change the economic
equation the whole process is based on.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Ja' abracas-te o tey lobo, hoje?"
Peter da Silva
> I would think Fido users have just as much (if not more) of a financial
> interest in the outcome of this, because they have to pay their own
> telephone long distance charges to transport newsgroups, whereas most
> usenet sites either get it for free over TCP/IP networks, or get it
> telephonically via a local call.
You think a 56K or T1 line is free, guess again.
You're missing the whole point, again, anyway.
No matter how the Usenet side of the gateway is arranged, the costs to Fido
remain the same. Fido doesn't care if it's comp.culture.tibet or rec.tibet
or soc.culture.tibet. They don't see that name. Usenet, however, does care.
If I'm getting sci.all, and you put it in sci.lang.tibet, I suddenly have to
pay for phone charges, disk space, maybe a faster internet link, and so on.
The name effects the economics of Usenet. It doesn't have any effect on Fido.
Peter da Silva
> What Peter did was throw in a meaningless phrase that gives an
> impression of authority to bolster his point.
What Peter did was attempt to use a short, simple phrase instead of spending
three or four pages explaining the history of Usenet. Peter certainly didn't
expect some lawyer to jump on his case for it.
> To say "in a legal sense" when you are debating with a lawyer,
> unless you are one and want to debate that too, is suicide in
> a debate...
There is no debate.
There is a lawyer who live by documents, and has a document in his hand, and
who doesn't know anything about the history of that document, deciding that
it's a legal contract and this is a courtroom.
There's a guy who's been here a while trying to explain this to said lawyer.
Fine, mister lawyer, rack up your debating points. It doesn't matter, because
that's not how the game is played. You don't win by being the best at using
words here. You win by contributing to the net, being accepted by the other
people doing the same thing, and just taking action.
> There should be a moral to this story about expressing what you
> know, not what you want others to think you know...
There's a moral here: before stepping into the middle of a discussion with
an explanation, make sure the person you're explaining things to knows
that's what you're doing.
Peter da Silva
> pd>I don't drink Pepsi. Why should Pepsico pay any attention when I
> pd>complain about the color of the bottle?
> Invalid analogy - the people you're trying to disenfranchise *are*
> "drinking Pepsi", they just bought it in a different store.
They bought it in a different store, in a different bottle, with a different
name on it. And no matter what color bottle we use, they're still going to
buy it in a different store, in a different bottle, with a different name
on it. So why should *they* tell me what color my bottle is? I'm not going to
try and tell them what color their bottle should be.
> RIME or FIDO? Are readers of the New York Times not "real" readers if
> they also get the San Francisco Chronicle?
They're not readers of the New York Times, that's for sure. If the Times runs
a poll of their readers asking if they should carry "Cathy", why should the
folks reading the San Francisco Chronicle care?
Putting things in concrete terms:
I'm not putting down any barbarians. I don't flame you for not feeding all
of Furnet into altnet. Why should I? It's none of my business.
David Seal
>On <Oct 28 13:37>, peter da silva (1:103/208) wrote to All:
>
> pd>of Usenet proper. Votes from people on the other side of gateways
> pd>are just noise. If there's enough obvious noise, the vote can
> pd>(and will) be ignored or reinterpreted. No matter *what* the
> pd>guidelines say.
>
> pd>I don't drink Pepsi. Why should Pepsico pay any attention when I
> pd>complain about the color of the bottle?
>
>Invalid analogy - the people you're trying to disenfranchise *are*
>"drinking Pepsi", they just bought it in a different store. If someone
>routinely gets a usenet newsgroup, does it really matter that the site
>from which they received it may also have access to other nets such as
>RIME or FIDO? ...
To pursue the analogy further: these other people aren't merely buying their
Pepsi in another store - they are buying it in different packaging. They've
certainly got an interest in being able to buy Pepsi, but I really don't see
that the colour of the bottle it was originally packaged in concerns them...
With Usenet, if people will receive a group via some sort of gateway to a
completely different system, I can see that they may want to express an
interest in the group being created. But expressing a liking or otherwise
for a group name seems strange: they're going to see the group under a
completely different name anyway!
Unfortunately, under the current voting system there is no way to separate
interest in a group's contents and naming preferences.
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
All opinions are mine only...
Charlie Mingo
>In article <2as786$i...@panix.com> mi...@panix.com (Charlie Mingo) writes:
>> You never explain the basis for your destinction between (your latest
>> euphamism) "usenet proper", and the rest of the net.
>
>Usenet is the set of sites that use B-news compatible transfer mechanisms
>to pass news, and present the namespace I will euphemistically refer to as
>being "managed" by the process that takes place in this group.
Finally, an attempt to introduce a REAL definition.
Now you've proposed a definition, please justify why this definition should
be adopted. I don't see any reference to "B-news compatible transfer
mechanisms" in the guidelines.
>> Your last attempt was to claim that some sites had a prior legal claim
>> to usenet than other sites; you have backed off that claim,
>
>I made no such claim. Your lawyer's mind inferred it from the less nitpicky
>language I used.
No, that's what you explicitly said.
> >Fido users don't have any real interest
> >in the legal sense in how Usenet is organised.
Your words ("any real interest in the legal sense") do not admit of
any other interpretation.
You just can't admit that you were caught trying to pull a fast one.
>> (ii) have never offered an explanation for changing the
>> guidelines.
>
>What change? I'm not changing anything. I'm simply explaining how the net
>works. If you don't understand how it works, you're just wasting your time.
Well, the net clearly DOESN'T "work" the way you describe, because
votes from sites you consider bogus ARE counted.
My understanding is that you wanted to CHANGE the guidelines to exclude votes
from certain sites.
>> No, you're offering your own theory of they way you think usenet SHOULD
>> work.
>
>Yes I am, no you're not, yes I am, no you're not. Give me a break.
Well, why don't you just try to rationally defend the setup you are
PROPOSING, instead of trying to hide behind the "that's the way it works"
rationale?
>If you haven't
>been part of this process, you have no basis (legal, rational, historical, or
>any other basis) for making assertions about what I'm doing.
Gee, now you tell me I'm not qualified to discuss this issue?
Is that your only way of dealing with rational argument? Invoke
pseudo-legal justifications, then try to hide behind a
mischaracterization of present practice, and finally attack the
"basis" of anyone else to even discuss the issue.
My, you are a real fountain of rational discourse.
>> You're attempting to substitute history for rationality.
>
>The guidelines are simply an informal attempt to capture the mechanism that
>has evolved, and is still evolving, in an attempt to keep Usenet functioning
>in the face of increasing traffic and coverage. They are a snapshot of
>history, not a legal document. They are no more and no less than that.
Fine. Then why don't you try to justify your proposed CHANGE in the
guidelines in terms of the practices and traditions which are described
in the guidelines themselves.
>> The problem you face is that usenet currently places no limit on who
>> can vote in CFV ballots,
>
>Charlie, you don't know what Usenet is. You haven't the vaguest idea what
>Usenet is. And you're pointing to a set of *guidelines* (not laws, not
>rules, but guidelines) and saying "this is usenet".
The fact remains that the guidelines which govern usenet group creation
currently place no limit on who can vote.
Calling me names will not change that basic fact. Why can't you deal with
the basic facts at hand? Why all these ad hominum attacks?
Is it because your position is rationally indefenseable?
>It's just a document describing the way things have been done, and what has
>worked in the past, in various polls that have been accepted as meaningful
>indications of the likely impact of various proposed groups.
OK. So we have a long history of using votes (from any site) to approve
newsgroups. Now, why should we deviate from that well-established practice?
>> Did I ever say they weren't guidelines? You seem to think that calling
>> something a "guideline" means that it carries no weight whatsoever.
>
>These guidelines carry very little weight.
Now, can you explain or defend THAT assertion.
Specifically: how many times in the history of usenet have the guidelines
been ignored when deciding whether to create a group?
It seems to me that, in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases, the
guidelines have been routinely applied, with no controversy.
>> To me, a "guideline" defines how things are USUALLY done;
>
>Yep.
>
>> practice can
>> deviate from the guideline in exceptional circumstances, but there
>> would have to be some explanation of why this was being done.
>
>Sure. I've given you that explanation. You choose to ignore it.
No, you haven't given an explanation for ignoring the votes in a certain
case; rather, you have tried to change the guidelines to redefine what is a
"vote".
To my mind, reasons for disregarding a vote might include (i) serious
allegations about the integrity of the vote-taking process, or (ii)
dramatically changed circumstances since the vote was taken, such that
most voters might change their minds (eg, if PAT resigned as c.d.t
moderator, I bet a lot of the steam would go out of c.d.t.t).
>> >And can be (and have been) ignored in any specific vote if there
>> >is any reason to believe the result doesn't reflect the actual readership
>> >of Usenet proper.
>
>> Sure the guidelines can be ignored in a specific case. But you are
>> proposing to CHANGE the guidelines, not IGNORE them.
>
>Nope. I'm not PROPOSING anything. I'm explaining how things work. Right here,
>and right now. If the guidelines don't match reality, that's unfortunate, but
>you can't change reality to match the guidelines.
Where do you get your "reality" from?
The reality appears to be that
(i) votes are routinely held for new newsgroups, and
(ii) the results of the vote are routinely accepted
as deciding the issue.
It seems that "reality" is against you on this point.
>Nah, the guidelines indicate that the person who wrote them never considered
>that someone would actually treat them as the Constitution of the United
>Networks of Usenet instead of applying common sense. Of course only people
>on Usenet should be voting.
But the guidelines clearly don't provide that, and the authors of the
guidelines were certainly aware that not every site on Internet has usenet
access.
Again, "reality" seems to be against you.
Charlie Mingo
>
>No matter how the Usenet side of the gateway is arranged, the costs to Fido
>remain the same. Fido doesn't care if it's comp.culture.tibet or rec.tibet
>or soc.culture.tibet. They don't see that name. Usenet, however, does care.
>If I'm getting sci.all, and you put it in sci.lang.tibet, I suddenly have to
>pay for phone charges, disk space, maybe a faster internet link, and so on.
>The name effects the economics of Usenet. It doesn't have any effect on Fido.
It clearly does affect Fido, for the same reasons it affects any other site
in usenet. Fido gateways have to be configured to use existing usenet
newsgroups. Lots of Fido sites only get certain subsets of usenet groups
(eg, just comp.sys.mac.*), and certainly will be affected by adding or
subtracting groups from that hierarchy.
Your opinion seems to be that the impact on any site other than your own
(and a few like you) is irrelevent, anyway. I have no idea why you even
pretend to care about the impact on Fido sites.
Charlie Mingo
>
>There is no debate.
Because you refuse to engage in one.
>There is a lawyer who live by documents, and has a document in his hand, and
>who doesn't know anything about the history of that document, deciding that
>it's a legal contract and this is a courtroom.
Did I ever say that?
I quote your words verbatim when I refer to what you said.
Please do not lie about what other people have said.
>Fine, mister lawyer, rack up your debating points. It doesn't matter, because
>that's not how the game is played. You don't win by being the best at using
>words here.
If you're so sure you're in the right, then how come you can't explain
or defend the changes you are proposing to implement?
>There's a moral here: before stepping into the middle of a discussion with
>an explanation, make sure the person you're explaining things to knows
>that's what you're doing.
Well, gee, in return for being blessed with the wisdom of your words,
we have agreed to accept at face value whatever blather you may offer?
That's not the way usenet works, in my experience.
peter da silva
> The volume does make a difference if a reader doesn't keep up (i.e.,
> goes on vacation or suddenly gets badly sick). The mail spool fills
> up quicker with a higher-volume mailinglist.
It's true. I run a BBS in Houston, and what I do with high volume mailing
lists is have people route them to a local newsgroup address. I generally
find out about the high volume lists first time they blow out my mail spool.
But while it causes me an occasional headache, it's a minor problem and
the main costs of the volume (phone line time) is the same regardless of
whether it's a newsgroup or mailing list.
Kirk Wattles
In article <158...@netnews.upenn.edu>
kwat...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Kirk Wattles) writes:
K: The "vote" is a mechanism.
R: Yes.
K: "Democracy" is a set of principles.
R: Yes.
K: The two come together in one package.
R: No.
That's what King George and his Royal Governors told the colonial
assemblies in America.
peter da silva
> Now you've proposed a definition, please justify why this definition should
> be adopted. I don't see any reference to "B-news compatible transfer
> mechanisms" in the guidelines.
Here, step into my virtual reality office real quick.
Fx: door opens, step step step step. Boxes shuffled, file drawers opened.
Fx: big thump as a pile of papers lands on the desk.
"Here you go, USENET Frequently Asked Questions files. RFCs. Lists of lists.
Jargon file. Read this stuff. This is the source material... if you don't
understand that stuff you can't be expected to understand the guidelines."
Back to Usenet...
The guidelines are a tiny tiny part of the whole shebang. Expecting them to
document all the terms is as meaningful as taking the disclaimer on the
back of the ticket you get when you park your car in a garage and complaining
that it doesn't explain what a bailment is.
(no, I don't exactly understand what a bailment is either. I probably
should)
> Your words ("any real interest in the legal sense") do not admit of
> any other interpretation.
> You just can't admit that you were caught trying to pull a fast one.
That's cos I wasn't. I was caught not being a lawyer. I was caught not
understanding the language I used. Thanks. I won't make that mistake again.
Tell you what, I'll write 100 times "I won't use the word 'legal' ever
again without asking a lawyer first". Will that make you happy?
I'm not a lawyer. I do, however, understand what Usenet is and how it
works.
> >> (ii) have never offered an explanation for changing the
> >> guidelines.
> >What change? I'm not changing anything. I'm simply explaining how the net
> >works. If you don't understand how it works, you're just wasting your time.
> Well, the net clearly DOESN'T "work" the way you describe, because
> votes from sites you consider bogus ARE counted.
Depends on how many there are. When it's obvious that there are enough
votes from such sites in the list, the whole thing gets thrown out, or
you get negotiations between the group proponents and the system
administrators as to what should be done. Thus, you get things like
the misc.activism.progressive revote.
> My understanding is that you wanted to CHANGE the guidelines to exclude votes
> from certain sites.
I don't want to *CHANGE* anything. I saw a discussion going on about the
guidelines and whether it made sense to include FIDO sites, and I offered
a comment about why FIDO sites weren't considered part of Usenet. For
whatever reason you jumped all over my case about that and I've been
trying to get a couple of simple points through to you ever since.
You don't seem to have the background to understand what the guidelines
are. I'm trying to help with that. I'm not trying to change anything because
this isn't the way anything gets changed.
> Well, why don't you just try to rationally defend the setup you are
> PROPOSING, instead of trying to hide behind the "that's the way it works"
> rationale?
Because I'm not proposing anything. I'm not suggesting anything be changed.
I'm trying to educate you.
> Gee, now you tell me I'm not qualified to discuss this issue?
Yes. You are not qualified to discuss this issue. I'm not qualified to
discuss whether a ticket I get from the museum's parking garage is or is
not a bailment because I don't know what a bailment is. You're not
qualified to discuss whether FIDOnet is part of Usenet because you
don't know what Usenet is. If you do you're deliberately ignoring that
knowledge, 'cos you've given no sign of it.
> Specifically: how many times in the history of usenet have the guidelines
> been ignored when deciding whether to create a group?
Well, I've created several groups using mechanisms not spelled out in the
guidelines (rec.aquaria, a couple of IBM and Amiga groups that have since
been reorganized a couple of times, and recently misc.activism.progressive).
There have been two well-known groups that didn't get created despite
following the letter of the guidelines explicitly (m.a.general and
comp.protocolos.tcp-ip.eniac). There's one group that still has poor
propogation because while it followed the letter of the guidelines it
ignored the intent behind them (sci.aquaria).
There have been others. Those are just the ones I recall because I
happened to be involved.
> It seems to me that, in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases, the
> guidelines have been routinely applied, with no controversy.
That's right. In the vast majority of cases the number of bogus votes is
small enough nobody worries about them. When there are a lot of them, you
get the usual bickering and various attempts behind the scenes by the group
proponents and various personages who are generally trusted by the folks
on the net and something gets worked out.
> Where do you get your "reality" from?
Experience.
> The reality appears to be that
> (i) votes are routinely held for new newsgroups, and
> (ii) the results of the vote are routinely accepted
> as deciding the issue.
Most of the time, yep, that's what happens. Because most of the time you
don't have deliberate attempts to subvert the process by (warning, analogy
ahead) shipping in voters from other precincts.
> But the guidelines clearly don't provide that, and the authors of the
> guidelines were certainly aware that not every site on Internet has usenet
> access.
The authors of the guidelines were writing them for Usenet. Not the Internet
or FIDOnet or any other net. What does the Internet have to do with this
at all? As far as Usenet is concerned it's just a convenient transfer
mechanism, and a handy library for publishing standards in.
peter da silva
> In article <id.K_Z...@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
> >There is no debate.
> Because you refuse to engage in one.
Give the man a cigar.
I refuse to engage in a debate. I'm not interested in the debate. I
don't even know if this is over the tibet group or the telecom group,
and I don't care. I'm just trying to explain a bit of how the net works
to some folks who don't understand it.
peter da silva
> It clearly does affect Fido, for the same reasons it affects any other site
> in usenet. Fido gateways have to be configured to use existing usenet
> newsgroups.
They gateways do, yes. Folks running the gateway are on Usenet. They get
Usenet news and munge it into Fidonet formats. On the other side of the
gateway, though, there's no impact. I see no reason not to accept votes
from the gateway site, but that's not what you're suggesting.
> Your opinion seems to be that the impact on any site other than your own
> (and a few like you) is irrelevent, anyway. I have no idea why you even
> pretend to care about the impact on Fido sites.
Um, becuse I used to run one, and more recently have gatewayed news and
mail to local sites running waffle?
Floyd Davidson
>In article <2b6ksd$3...@panix.com> mi...@panix.com (Charlie Mingo) writes:
>> Now you've proposed a definition, please justify why this definition should
>> be adopted. I don't see any reference to "B-news compatible transfer
>> mechanisms" in the guidelines.
[other trivia delete...]
>The guidelines are a tiny tiny part of the whole shebang. Expecting them to
>document all the terms is as meaningful as taking the disclaimer on the
>back of the ticket you get when you park your car in a garage and complaining
>that it doesn't explain what a bailment is.
I understand exactly what you are saying here Peter, and I agree that
its true. Why use so many words to say "I can't justify it."?
... lets go down the road here a bit:
>> Gee, now you tell me I'm not qualified to discuss this issue?
>
>Yes. You are not qualified to discuss this issue. I'm not qualified to
>discuss whether a ticket I get from the museum's parking garage is or is
I've been known to claim those who don't want votes from any except the
real "true" Usenetizin might have an elitist attitude... Guess what
gives me that idea and what kinds of statements cause me to repeat it?
--
fl...@ims.alaska.edu A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
Charlie Mingo
>
>They gateways do, yes. Folks running the gateway are on Usenet. They get
>Usenet news and munge it into Fidonet formats. On the other side of the
>gateway, though, there's no impact.
If there's no usenet group, then there is no traffic to echo to the Fido
sites. If the gateway carries only comp.* groups (for example) then a
proposal to move alt.dcom.telecom to comp.dcom.telecom.tech clearly affects
everyone down the chain of distribution from the gateway.
You may want to ignore the impact on Fido sites as a matter of policy, but
it is impossible to argue that they are unaffected.
Charlie Mingo
>In article <2b6lfk$5...@panix.com> mi...@panix.com (Charlie Mingo) writes:
>
>I refuse to engage in a debate. I'm not interested in the debate.
>to some folks who don't understand it.
No, you're trying to porpogate your particular theory about how the net
SHOULD operate. You're simply trying to pass off your elitist attituude
as "reality", when the experience of years of applying the guidelines
flagrantly contradicts your claim that they carry "very little weight".
>I don't even know if this is over the tibet group or the telecom group,
>and I don't care.
Now I have a glimmer of understanding.
You think you have to argue that poorly-connected sites should be
disenfranchised in order to further your goal of the creation of a new
telecom group.
I am only interested in keeeping usenet in the hands of the people who
read and post messages. And, yes, they do presently have a great deal
of influence over newsgroup creation, even if you are too proud to
admit it.
(How can you deny it? We hold votes, fer chrisake!)
Charlie Mingo
>
>The guidelines are a tiny tiny part of the whole shebang. Expecting them to
>document all the terms is as meaningful as taking the disclaimer on the
>back of the ticket you get when you park your car in a garage and complaining
>that it doesn't explain what a bailment is.
In other words, there is no support in the guidelines for your definition
of "usenet". Just as I thought. Glad to hear you finally admit it.
>> You just can't admit that you were caught trying to pull a fast one.
>
>That's cos I wasn't. I was caught not being a lawyer. I was caught not
>understanding the language I used. Thanks. I won't make that mistake again.
Interesting. You think using only words that you understand is the
hallmark of being a lawyer? I thought it was the hallmark of being
an honest person.
>> >What change? I'm not changing anything. I'm simply explaining how the net
>> >works. If you don't understand how it works, you're just wasting your time.
>
>> Well, the net clearly DOESN'T "work" the way you describe, because
>> votes from sites you consider bogus ARE counted.
>
>Depends on how many there are. When it's obvious that there are enough
>votes from such sites in the list, the whole thing gets thrown out,
Well, now we're talking turkey!
Can you give me a list of examples of when voting results were actually
"thrown out" simply because of the sites the votes originated from?
(Note that your claim that the results of such votes are routinely ignored
sort of contradicts your claim that the authors of the guidelines were
unaware of the possibility that a significant number of votes would not come
from "usenet proper".)
>> My understanding is that you wanted to CHANGE the guidelines to exclude
>> votes from certain sites.
>
>I don't want to *CHANGE* anything. I saw a discussion going on about the
>guidelines and whether it made sense to include FIDO sites, and I offered
>a comment about why FIDO sites weren't considered part of Usenet.
No, you offered a comment about why YOU didn't consider them part of usenet.
Again, you have this annoying habit of speaking as if you were handing down
the wisdom of the ages, and are shocked that anyone might quibble with the
word of Moses.
Why don't we just pretend (for the purposes of this thread only) that you
are a normal human being, and your words are not to be automatically accepted
as holy writ (especially when you admit you often don't understand the words
you are using)?
>I'm not trying to change anything because
>this isn't the way anything gets changed.
>
>Because I'm not proposing anything. I'm not suggesting anything be changed.
Clearly, the votes are counted now. You have proposed that the vote-counter
ignore votes from sites outside "usenet proper", calling such votes "bogus"
and "noise". Right now, they are not treated as such.
>> Specifically: how many times in the history of usenet have the guidelines
>> been ignored when deciding whether to create a group?
>
>Well, I've created several groups using mechanisms not spelled out in the
>guidelines (rec.aquaria, a couple of IBM and Amiga groups that have since
>been reorganized a couple of times, and recently misc.activism.progressive).
>There have been two well-known groups that didn't get created despite
>following the letter of the guidelines explicitly (m.a.general and
>comp.protocolos.tcp-ip.eniac). There's one group that still has poor
>propogation because while it followed the letter of the guidelines it
>ignored the intent behind them (sci.aquaria).
Are these examples of the results of votes being ignored?
I'd like examples of what you claim is the "normal" practice of disregarding
votes for groups where a significant number of votes came from sites outsode
"usenet proper"?
If you can't come up with any examples of that, then it's hard to argue that
all those votes are "bogus" and that the "reality" is that such votes cause
the result to be ignored.
peter da silva
> >The guidelines are a tiny tiny part of the whole shebang. Expecting them to
> >document all the terms is as meaningful as taking the disclaimer on the
> >back of the ticket you get when you park your car in a garage and complaining
> >that it doesn't explain what a bailment is.
> I understand exactly what you are saying here Peter, and I agree that
> its true. Why use so many words to say "I can't justify it."?
Let me get this straight. You understand and agree with what I'm saying.
And at the same time you're telling me I can't justify it?
I suspect that you think I'm saying something that I'm not actually saying.
What precisely is it that you think I'm trying to justify?
peter da silva
over a series of increasingly acrimonious messages, Charlie Mingo writes:
> >> Gee, now you tell me I'm not qualified to discuss this issue?
My response is to acknowledge that I'm not qualified to discuss law, and
that he is in fact not qualified to discuss Usenet:
> >Yes. You are not qualified to discuss this issue. I'm not qualified to
> >discuss whether a ticket I get from the museum's parking garage is or is
> >not a bailment [...]
Our good buddy Floyd butts in with:
> I've been known to claim those who don't want votes from any except the
> real "true" Usenetizin might have an elitist attitude... Guess what
> gives me that idea and what kinds of statements cause me to repeat it?
Damn, you gotta love those out-of-context quotes.
Richard M. Hartman
Nice attempt to misdirect. King George is, however, in this
case a straw man that I will ignore.
You omitted my entire explanation of those answers. Let me try
again, briefly:
Democracy does imply votes, given. Votes do NOT necessarily
imply democracy. In particular, although "votes" are held
for the ratification of new groups, Usenet is NOT a democracy.
Usenet is an autonomous collective ... sorry, too much Monty
Python ... a cooperative anarchy. The cooperation is between
the various site admins. The votes are for the benefit of
these admins, to determine whether it is reasonable to spend
resources on the proposed group, but in the end the decision
>is< up to the admins -- this can be shown by the fact that
regardless of vote outcomes not all groups (or even hierarchies)
will be found at all sites.
-Richard Hartman
har...@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Fosters! It's Australian for beer, mate!"
Jay Maynard
>I am only interested in keeeping usenet in the hands of the people who
>read and post messages. And, yes, they do presently have a great deal
>of influence over newsgroup creation, even if you are too proud to
>admit it.
To keep it there, you must first show that it is indeed there.
What you appear not to understand is that admins across the net honor the
results of votes because, generally, they have no reason not to. Those votes
are _*NOT!!*_ binding on admins, though, and any admin may ignore them at his
whim (subject, of course, to being mercilessly flamed for it).
Influence, yes. Control, no.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"The road to Usenet is littered with dead horses." -- Jack Hamilton
David Seal
>In article <id.YV0...@nmti.com>, peter da silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>>[quoting Charlie]
>>> You just can't admit that you were caught trying to pull a fast one.
>>
>>That's cos I wasn't. I was caught not being a lawyer. I was caught not
>>understanding the language I used. Thanks. I won't make that mistake again.
>
>Interesting. You think using only words that you understand is the
>hallmark of being a lawyer? I thought it was the hallmark of being
>an honest person.
For goodness' sake! Peter used a single poorly chosen word, and has said
that it was a mistake. Do you think you could possibly let it rest, rather
than continuing to accuse him of trying to "pull a fast one", make snide
comments which imply he is dishonest, etc.?
>>I don't want to *CHANGE* anything. I saw a discussion going on about the
>>guidelines and whether it made sense to include FIDO sites, and I offered
>>a comment about why FIDO sites weren't considered part of Usenet.
>
>No, you offered a comment about why YOU didn't consider them part of usenet.
Peter is not alone in this: I also don't consider FIDO sites to be part of
Usenet, for exactly the reasons he gave. It's a fair bet that quite a few
other people agree with him as well...
Under the current voting system, I still think people at FIDO sites should
have a vote, because they may have an interest (and no, I'm not going to
spell out what type of interest it is :-) in the existence of the group. If
at some point in the future, Usenet were to change to a dual interest
survey/name vote system, I think there would be a case to be made that they
should only be allowed to vote in the first part. (There would also be a
case that trying to enforce such a restriction would be too difficult and
prone to error.)
But as things stand, my position is "FIDO sites are not part of Usenet
proper, but there are still good reasons why people at them should be
allowed to take part in Usenet votes".
>>Because I'm not proposing anything. I'm not suggesting anything be changed.
>
>Clearly, the votes are counted now. You have proposed that the vote-counter
>ignore votes from sites outside "usenet proper", calling such votes "bogus"
>and "noise". Right now, they are not treated as such.
I've seen Peter suggest that FIDO sites are not part of Usenet proper. I
don't remember seeing him suggest that their votes should not be counted,
and haven't found such a suggestion in a brief scan back through some of his
postings. Is it possible you're confusing him with someone else posting in
this thread?
peter da silva
> of "usenet". Just as I thought. Glad to hear you finally admit it.
Have fun debating yourself.
In the real usenet, people will keep making it work, using the guidelines
as just one of the many tools out there.
peter da silva
> You think you have to argue that poorly-connected sites should be
> disenfranchised in order to further your goal of the creation of a new
> telecom group.
My goal of the creation of a new telecom group?
I never read alt.dcom.telecom and I haven't read comp.dcom.telecom in a
long time. I genuinely have no interest (legal, financial, ego, personal,
professional, or whatever) in whether comp.dcom.telecom.tech exists. If
it matters, I think Pat Townson does a fine job of moderating TELECOM
digest. I didn't even vote in the recent poll... check the lists if you
don't believe me.
> I am only interested in keeeping usenet in the hands of the people who
> read and post messages.
It's never been in their hands.
> And, yes, they do presently have a great deal
> of influence over newsgroup creation, even if you are too proud to
> admit it.
Influence, yes. Certainly. Control? Nope.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 Not a member of any secret conspiracies.
peter da silva
> If there's no usenet group, then there is no traffic to echo to the Fido
> sites. If the gateway carries only comp.* groups (for example) then a
> proposal to move alt.dcom.telecom to comp.dcom.telecom.tech clearly affects
> everyone down the chain of distribution from the gateway.
Fidonet has its own namespace. A gateway converts individual groups to
individual echoes. Whether it converts comp.dcom.telecom.tech or
alt.dcom.telecom into whatever they call it on their side doesn't matter.
Or perhaps you're using a word (gateway) to refer to something else (a non-
leaf usenet node)? Nah... couldn't be. You never use words you don't entirely
understand the meaning of.
Guy Middleton
> In article <2bah11$8...@panix.com> mi...@panix.com (Charlie Mingo) writes:
> > I am only interested in keeeping usenet in the hands of the people who
> > read and post messages.
>
> It's never been in their hands.
And no amount of debate, nor any revision to the Guidelines, will change this.
Arnold Chu
: Democracy does imply votes, given. Votes do NOT necessarily
: imply democracy. In particular, although "votes" are held
: for the ratification of new groups, Usenet is NOT a democracy.
: Usenet is an autonomous collective ... sorry, too much Monty
: Python ... a cooperative anarchy. The cooperation is between
: the various site admins. The votes are for the benefit of
: these admins, to determine whether it is reasonable to spend
: resources on the proposed group, but in the end the decision
: >is< up to the admins -- this can be shown by the fact that
: regardless of vote outcomes not all groups (or even hierarchies)
: will be found at all sites.
Everyone can agree that the sysadmins has veto power for their own
sites. Also, their cooperartion are necessary for the creation and
operation of any news group. However, it is the POSTERS and Moderators
of a group which make the newsgroup worthwhile. Their cooperations are also
essential for a lively and useful group.
The cost/benefits to the formation/change/destruction of a newsgroup should
include the perspectives of ALL the stake-holders: sys admins, news admins,
readers, posters, gateways, etc., IMHO. Otherwise, much of the efforts of
others who labored to create this community would go unacknowledged.
Regards,
A. Chu
Alan Barrett
which Charlie Mingo arrives at his claim that Peter da Silva's words
"Fido users don't have any real interest in the legal sense in
how Usenet is organised"
do not admit of any other interpretation than that
"some sites had a prior legal claim to usenet than other sites"
Thank you in advance,
--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: bar...@ee.und.ac.za
Richard M. Hartman
Does any of this somehow imply that Usenet >is< a democracy? That
was the only point I was addressing. Even if I grant you all of
what you said (which is actually not unreasonable), it does not
make, imply, or require Usenet to be a democracy ... nor votes
to be binding.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Blasting, bursting, billowing forth with |
the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes, | -Richard Hartman
Man, with his flaming fire, | har...@uLogic.COM
has conquered the wayword breezes. |
Kirk Wattles
<24...@ulogic.UUCP> and <158...@netnews.upenn.edu> -- har...@ulogic.UUCP
(Richard M. Hartman) and kwat...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Kirk Wattles) write:
K: The "vote" is a mechanism.
R: Yes.
K: "Democracy" is a set of principles.
R: Yes.
K: The two come together in one package.
R: No.
K: That's what King George and his Royal Governors told the colonial
assemblies in America.
R: Nice attempt to misdirect. King George is, however, in this
case a straw man that I will ignore.
K: Thanks, Richard, for your explanation of the way things work in Usenet.
The system of governance in the British colonies worked pretty well for
about seventy years (1696-1763 or so) with just a few minor adjustments
along the way.
R: Votes do NOT necessarily imply democracy.
K: Okay, I'll accept that statement as true (*with* the "necessarily"
included) at least in the short term.
--
Kirk Wattles
(kwat...@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
.
peter da silva
> include the perspectives of ALL the stake-holders: sys admins, news admins,
> readers, posters, gateways, etc., IMHO. Otherwise, much of the efforts of
> others who labored to create this community would go unacknowledged.
I'm sorry, I'm sort of at a loss here.
This is a survey of potential readers. Not an accolade at a public awards
ceremony.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Ja' abracaste o teu lobo, hoje?"
Richard M. Hartman
Ok, you'll accept my point (which was the only point I was trying
to make). If you accept this, then my statement negative reply to
your proposition that votes and democracy come in one package is
understandable, no?
So what does King George and the colonies have to do with Usenet?
Summary:
1) Usenet does have votes for the benefit of news admins for
the purpose of determining the carry-value of proposed
newsgroups.
2) Usenet is nonetheless not a democracy.
3) King George is a tyrant.
Are we agreed?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Work away today, think about tomorrow. |
Never comes the day, for my love and me. | -Richard Hartman
I feel her gently sighing | har...@uLogic.COM
as the evening slips away.... |
Edmund Schweppe
[ all the serious stuff deleted ]
>Summary:
> 3) King George is a tyrant.
>Are we agreed?
I beg to differ.
King George *was* a tyrant, and a rotten one at that.
AFAIK, he's just rotten now.
--
==========================================================================
| Edmund Schweppe - schw...@bumetb.bu.edu, schw...@acs.bu.edu |
| All standard disclaimers (also datclaimers and deotherclaimers) apply. |
==========================================================================
Charlie Mingo
Jay Maynard <jmay...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>
>>I am only interested in keeeping usenet in the hands of the people who
>>read and post messages. And, yes, they do presently have a great deal
>>of influence over newsgroup creation, even if you are too proud to
>>admit it.
>
>To keep it there, you must first show that it is indeed there.
>
>What you appear not to understand is that admins across the net honor the
>results of votes because, generally, they have no reason not to. Those votes
>are _*NOT!!*_ binding on admins, though, and any admin may ignore them at his
>whim (subject, of course, to being mercilessly flamed for it).
>
>Influence, yes. Control, no.
You will note I used the word "influence," and not the word "control".
Please read before you reply.
Kirk Wattles
and <25...@ulogic.UUCP> -- har...@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) and
kwat...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Kirk Wattles) write:
K: The "vote" is a mechanism.
R: Yes.
K: "Democracy" is a set of principles.
R: Yes.
K: The two come together in one package.
R: No.
K: That's what King George and his Royal Governors told the colonial
assemblies in America.
R: Nice attempt to misdirect. King George is, however, in this
case a straw man that I will ignore.
K: Thanks, Richard, for your explanation of the way things work in Usenet.
The system of governance in the British colonies worked pretty well for
about seventy years (1696-1763 or so) with just a few minor adjustments
along the way.
R: Votes do NOT necessarily imply democracy.
K: Okay, I'll accept that statement as true (*with* the "necessarily"
included) at least in the short term.
R: Ok, you'll accept my point (which was the only point I was trying
> to make). If you accept this, then my statement negative reply to
> your proposition that votes and democracy come in one package is
> understandable, no?
No, I won't accept your "point," which was (as I understood it) an
injunction that no-one who joins the discussion in news.groups refer
to the principles of democracy as if those principles might be relevant
to such topics as voting, RFDs, CFVs, and user involvement in Usenet.
> So what does King George and the colonies have to do with Usenet?
You had to ask! :)
After the English civil war in the 1640s and the Glorious Revolution
of 1688, the British crown was forced to accept the power of Parliament.
In the royal colonies, too, assemblies were accepted as an effective way
for the colonists to make decisions in the things that mattered to them.
But under the policy of Royal Disallowance, the Board of Trade reviewed
colonial legislation and disallowed laws that conflicted with imperial
policies. Judicial appeals went to the Privy Council in London. The
Secretary of State for the Southern Department appointed key officials.
During the first half of the 1700s, the colonial assemblies gained more
and more influence over internal affairs, including appointments and
appropriations. They used "the vote" as a means of making their decisions,
of course, and they felt they were using and developing the principles of
"democracy." Matters came to a head after the Seven Years' War (so-called
French and Indian War), when the British government decided to end what
had become a _de_facto_ policy of benign neglect. The rest is history.
What does this have to do with Usenet? In both cases, the "vote" and
other democratic forms were/are used for certain decisions, while the
established authorities held/hold the power to intervene and overturn
decisions they didn't like, and even to change the rules from time to
time. Their legitimacy was/is derived from their involvement in the
earliest stages of development. "Colonists" and "users" were/are
often spoken of in terms of contempt. And the rest is history.
Richard, with your first follow-up to my original posting, you deleted
the contents of my argument. My main point was that voting is an
effective means of making decisions, with many advantages that cannot be
matched in a system of centralized planning. Opinion polls and surveys,
in the hands of a central authority, are a poor substitute for the
information that comes out of a vote. (This is true in spades when the
authority is decentralized.)
Voting, where each vote actually makes a difference (or at least has a
chance of making *the* difference), draws the attention of those who
feel they actually have a stake in the decision. The dispute is
energized by the prospect of a real vote, and when the decision is made
all parties can feel that they actually participated in it.
Democratic principles are invoked in all of the activities conducted
in news.groups, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly. You and
others have objected to the explicit utterances. So I merely pointed
out that voting is a useful mechanism for making decisions, and that
voting brings with it certain expectations. Unless you abolish the
vote, you will never kill these expectations.
>Summary:
>
> 1) Usenet does have votes for the benefit of news admins for
> the purpose of determining the carry-value of proposed
> newsgroups.
a) Why should we do anything to *benefit* news admins?
b) Or do you mean we're making their job easier?
c) What is their job, then?
Also, I think you're using the term "carry-value" to carry a rather
heavy and heterogeneous load! The word "value" itself has been giving
conniptions to economists for centuries!
> 2) Usenet is nonetheless not a democracy.
Compare this with your previous statement:
Votes do NOT necessarily imply democracy.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Usenet is obviously a lot of things. My argument is that Usenet *is*
a democracy to the extent that some of the practices carried out in
Usenet conform to democratic principles. It is also, by the way, a
*dictatorship* to the extent that some of the practices ... (etc.)
> 3) King George is a tyrant.
Actually, King George was rather a nice man, on his better days. :)
> Are we agreed?
Obviously not. Richard, I thought I made my point pretty clearly with
my first posting, but you took my quotes out of context and forced the
debate into an either/or framework. Is it important to you that we
agree with you that "Usenet is not a democracy"?
If *everyone* in news.groups agreed with your statement, what difference
would it make to you? What, to you, are the important differences that
would result if we all resolved to carry on with the understanding that
"Usenet is not a democracy"?
Would we be nicer to one another? Would we object less often to the
decisions that news admins make? Would we be happier? more contented?
And if everyone (but you) agreed that Usenet *is* a democracy, again,
what difference would it make?
I'll leave you the last word.
--
Kirk Wattles
(kwat...@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
P.S. Thanks for the dance. :)
Charlie Mingo
>In article <2bai30$9...@panix.com> mi...@panix.com (Charlie Mingo) writes:
>
>>In article <id.YV0...@nmti.com>, peter da silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>>>[quoting Charlie]
>>>> You just can't admit that you were caught trying to pull a fast one.
>>>
>>>That's cos I wasn't. I was caught not being a lawyer. I was caught not
>>>understanding the language I used. Thanks. I won't make that mistake again.
>>
>>Interesting. You think using only words that you understand is the
>>hallmark of being a lawyer? I thought it was the hallmark of being
>>an honest person.
>
>For goodness' sake! Peter used a single poorly chosen word, and has said
>that it was a mistake. Do you think you could possibly let it rest, rather
>than continuing to accuse him of trying to "pull a fast one", make snide
>comments which imply he is dishonest, etc.?
He didn't use a "single poorly chosen word. He wrote a whole post on how
some sites (he calls them "usenet proper") have a preferred status over
other sites. He tried at length to justify this with a pseudo-legal
rationale about certain sites having "no real interest" in usenet.
I _do_ think it is dishonest to make that sort of long argument, and then
to claim you had nothing to do with it. We all saw him do it. There is
no point in denying it now.
>>>Because I'm not proposing anything. I'm not suggesting anything be changed.
>>
>>Clearly, the votes are counted now. You have proposed that the vote-counter
>>ignore votes from sites outside "usenet proper", calling such votes "bogus"
>>and "noise". Right now, they are not treated as such.
>
>I've seen Peter suggest that FIDO sites are not part of Usenet proper. I
>don't remember seeing him suggest that their votes should not be counted,
>and haven't found such a suggestion in a brief scan back through some of his
>postings. Is it possible you're confusing him with someone else posting in
>this thread?
He certainly made those remarks (and many other like them). I suspect
these posts have been expired off your news system, as they aoccurred
several weeks ago.
Charlie Mingo
>In article <2bagkc$8...@panix.com> mi...@panix.com (Charlie Mingo) writes:
>> If there's no usenet group, then there is no traffic to echo to the Fido
>> sites. If the gateway carries only comp.* groups (for example) then a
>> proposal to move alt.dcom.telecom to comp.dcom.telecom.tech clearly affects
>> everyone down the chain of distribution from the gateway.
>
>Fidonet has its own namespace. A gateway converts individual groups to
>individual echoes. Whether it converts comp.dcom.telecom.tech or
>alt.dcom.telecom into whatever they call it on their side doesn't matter.
As has been pointed out to you many times before, the name does matter
if the gateway only has access to a subset of usenet groups (say, just
the comp.* hierarchy).
In other words, it matters for exactly the same reason that names matter in
the world of "usenet proper". If your gateway doesn't get a group, you
can't feed it to the sites beneath you.
peter da silva
> Richard, with your first follow-up to my original posting, you deleted
> the contents of my argument. My main point was that voting is an
> effective means of making decisions, with many advantages that cannot be
> matched in a system of centralized planning.
Centralised planning? On USENET?
(gales of hysterical laughter)
This ain't a monarchy. It ain't a democracy. It's a cooperative anarchy.
> Opinion polls and surveys,
> in the hands of a central authority, are a poor substitute for the
> information that comes out of a vote. (This is true in spades when the
> authority is decentralized.)
Yah, the information is vital. It's still not binding on anyone. By
definition, it *can't* be binding. Without the ability to use force to
make it binding, it's not a democracy.
> Voting, where each vote actually makes a difference (or at least has a
> chance of making *the* difference), draws the attention of those who
> feel they actually have a stake in the decision. The dispute is
> energized by the prospect of a real vote, and when the decision is made
> all parties can feel that they actually participated in it.
Oh yes, it's important that people feel they have a part in the decision.
That cuts down the amount of flaming against the people who really make it.
> Democratic principles are invoked in all of the activities conducted
> in news.groups, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly.
Only by folks who aren't aware of what's really going on.
> a) Why should we do anything to *benefit* news admins?
They're doing something to benefit you?
> b) Or do you mean we're making their job easier?
Yep, by letting them do it instead of being full time news admins.
> c) What is their job, then?
Usually something other than supporting Usenet.
> If *everyone* in news.groups agreed with your statement, what difference
> would it make to you? What, to you, are the important differences that
> would result if we all resolved to carry on with the understanding that
> "Usenet is not a democracy"?
We'd get fewer flames from folks who think it is, and more flames from folks
who think it should be.
Richard M. Hartman
R=har...@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
K=kwat...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Kirk Wattles)
The story so far (abridged):
>R: Votes do NOT necessarily imply democracy.
>
>K: Okay, I'll accept that statement as true (*with* the "necessarily"
> included) at least in the short term.
>
>R: Ok, you'll accept my point (which was the only point I was trying
> to make). If you accept this, then my statement negative reply to
> your proposition that votes and democracy come in one package is
> understandable, no?
>
>K: No, I won't accept your "point," which was (as I understood it) an
> injunction that no-one who joins the discussion in news.groups refer
> to the principles of democracy as if those principles might be relevant
> to such topics as voting, RFDs, CFVs, and user involvement in Usenet.
I honestly don't see how you can accept the first statement but
still object to the second. If votes do not necessarily imply
democracy, then votes and democracy do not come in the same
package. The two statements seem to me to be quite directly
related.
However, your second reply there seems to imply that you are not
referring to the first statement as "my point".
So to continue with what YOU have perceived as "my point": As
things are currently run, it is indeed the case that democracy
does not apply to usenet "votes".
If you wish to discuss CHANGING the process, you may be able
to try and bring up a truly democratic voting process, both
deterministic and binding. (Your constant referral to King
George and the colonies seems to imply that this is what you want
to do.)
But you can not discuss the CURRENT process with the assumption
that it is democratic. It is not. It would be as wrong to portray
the current process as if it were democratic as it would have
been to portray the colonial political reality as democratic
prior to the revolution.
I did not see you discussing some proposed system of truly
democratic voting as a proposed alternative to the current
system -- I saw an assumption that it already was, with
discussion about disenfranchisement and the rest based upon
that (incorrect) assumption.
[ minor history lession deleted ]
>K: What does this have to do with Usenet? In both cases, the "vote" and
> other democratic forms were/are used for certain decisions, while the
> established authorities held/hold the power to intervene and overturn
> decisions they didn't like, and even to change the rules from time to
> time. Their legitimacy was/is derived from their involvement in the
> earliest stages of development. "Colonists" and "users" were/are
> often spoken of in terms of contempt. And the rest is history.
You could go even further, the power of the admins here does not
really derive from their participation in the early stages of
development, it derives from their stewardship of the equipment
granted to them by the owners of the equipment. To oppose this
natural order of things would of course be quite feudal ;-)
However, as with the lords & serfs situation, this one changes
as the ability for the serfs (users) to own their own land (equipment)
becomes greater as the price is lowered. There are quite a few
single-user sites now, which would have been practically unheard
of when usenet started.
>K: Richard, with your first follow-up to my original posting, you deleted
> the contents of my argument. My main point was that voting is an
> effective means of making decisions, with many advantages that cannot be
> matched in a system of centralized planning. Opinion polls and surveys,
> in the hands of a central authority, are a poor substitute for the
> information that comes out of a vote. (This is true in spades when the
> authority is decentralized.)
Welcome to Usenet -- it is neither democratic, nor centrally planned.
It is a decentralized "autonomous collective" of individual sites, each
managed by their own policies. Your point about polls in the hands of
a central authority does not really apply.
The truly key point here is that anyone may vote who is interested
enough. But that when the voting is done, it is up to each individual
admin to make the decision of whether the results of that vote are
going to be honored at their site. The system works because generally
there is no real reason to not do so.
If I remember correctly, this whole issue started because somebody
thought that Waffle-users did not really have an interest in selecting
the name of a group, since that name is lost in the usenet-to-waffle
gateways anyway, and that the waffle-based votes should therefore
not be counted as they have no direct stake in the usenet newsgroup
namespace issues which are among the prime reasons the vote exists
in the first place.
They are perfectly free to take this position, use it as a rule
at their site, and even attempt to convince the other admins that this
makes sense as a general rule & should be added to the RFCs governing
new group creation.
You are perfectly free to argue against this.
But an argument based upon the "fact" that Usenet votes are democratic
is fallacious.
(If I am confusing the origin of this thread with another situation
that is currently going on, please forgive me ... I >think< this
was the waffle-disenfranchisement thread, wasn't it?)
>K: Voting, where each vote actually makes a difference (or at least has a
> chance of making *the* difference), draws the attention of those who
> feel they actually have a stake in the decision. The dispute is
> energized by the prospect of a real vote, and when the decision is made
> all parties can feel that they actually participated in it.
In reality, since votes are rarely overturned, AND especially since
the voter turnout is generally fairly low, each vote DOES have the
chance of making "*the* difference". Much more so than in our real
elections.
As far as "the dispute is energized by the prospect of a real vote",
as I said, I felt you were discussing the >current< system as if it
were a "real vote", and not discussing a prospective, alternate,
system. Thus I felt that it to be stated that the >current< system
is NOT a "real" vote, lest that idea become more widespread.
>K: Democratic principles are invoked in all of the activities conducted
>in news.groups, usually implicitly
I disagree -- it may be silently assumed by some, but those
assumptions are wrong, and are not the same as an implicit
invocation.
>K: but sometimes explicitly. You and
>others have objected to the explicit utterances.
Correct, because those explicit statements deny the current reality.
(Denial of reality is the first step to schizophrenia doncha know. :-)
It is difficult to "object" to the silent assumptions, but when they
are explicitly stated we can attempt to correct the misinformed.
>So I merely pointed
>out that voting is a useful mechanism for making decisions, and that
>voting brings with it certain expectations. Unless you abolish the
>vote, you will never kill these expectations.
As has already been stated, perhaps calling it a "vote" is a
poor choice, but the fact that it is really a pool is not hidden,
and is fairly frequently mentioned.
As far as the expectations one brings to the implications of
the existance of a vote, there is not much that I can be
expected to do about them (I wasn't here when the vote started)
except to try and correct the incorrect impressions some people
have once they have been brought out in the open.
>R: 1) Usenet does have votes for the benefit of news admins for
> the purpose of determining the carry-value of proposed
> newsgroups.
>
>K: a) Why should we do anything to *benefit* news admins?
Because without them you don't get any news.
>K: b) Or do you mean we're making their job easier?
No, they are making your life more enjoyable. (This statement
presumes that you enjoy reading the Usenet news to some extent.)
>K: c) What is their job, then?
Now >there's< a good question! A news admin is a sub-class of
a system admin. Frequently a system admin is also the news admin
for a site. The new's admin's job is to keep the news going
smoothly. Now ask me what a "site facilitator" is <g>
>K: Also, I think you're using the term "carry-value" to carry a rather
>heavy and heterogeneous load! The word "value" itself has been giving
>conniptions to economists for centuries!
Ok. I didn't really know what else to call it.
>R: 2) Usenet is nonetheless not a democracy.
>
>K: Compare this with your previous statement:
>
>R: Votes do NOT necessarily imply democracy.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Ok, I've compared them. Did you see some inconsistancy between them?
I see no conflict between them. Usenet not being a democracy is one
of the cases that illustrates the second statement that votes do not
necessarily imply democracy:
Usenet has "votes" (really polls), and Usenet is not a democracy.
>K: Usenet is obviously a lot of things. My argument is that Usenet *is*
>a democracy to the extent that some of the practices carried out in
>Usenet conform to democratic principles.
You have yet to establish this. Which practices conform to democratic
principles? (Remember you have already conceded that votes do not
necessarily imply democracy.)
>L: It is also, by the way, a
>*dictatorship* to the extent that some of the practices ... (etc.)
No ... each site is (or may be) a dictatorship. Usenet is an anarchy.
(Please note that anarchy means "without ruler", not "without rules")
>R: 3) King George is a tyrant.
>
>K: Actually, King George was rather a nice man, on his better days. :)
I never met him on one of his better days :-(
>R: Are we agreed?
>
>K: Obviously not. Richard, I thought I made my point pretty clearly with
>my first posting, but you took my quotes out of context and forced the
>debate into an either/or framework. Is it important to you that we
>agree with you that "Usenet is not a democracy"?
No, it is important that you acknowledge the current reality and
work to change it if you don't like it, rather than present objections
based upon a false premise. Any conclusions that you may reach starting
from an untrue premise are likely to be invalid.
>K: If *everyone* in news.groups agreed with your statement, what difference
>would it make to you? What, to you, are the important differences that
>would result if we all resolved to carry on with the understanding that
>"Usenet is not a democracy"?
You phrase this question as if it represents a change from Usenet
being a democracy to a new state where it would no longer be. This
is not the case. You are the one who wishes to have the notion that
it is a democracy accepted as representing the actual state of affairs.
I have stated my goals above: to correct an incorrect assumption,
and to prevent discussion based upon an invalid premise from going
off into the ozone.
>Would we be nicer to one another? Would we object less often to the
>decisions that news admins make? Would we be happier? more contented?
I don't know. At least you would have a realisitic understanding
of the situation. Would that make you happer? Perhaps it might
make you even more dissatisfied! But you can not take any effective
action if you do not comprehend the situation you wish to change.
(Or, more simply: wishing doesn't make it so.)
>K: And if everyone (but you) agreed that Usenet *is* a democracy, again,
>what difference would it make?
That people would no longer have control of their own property?
>K: I'll leave you the last word.
No need, please feel free to continue.
>K: P.S. Thanks for the dance. :)
So much for the waltz ... now, do you tango? :-)
-Richard Hartman
har...@uLogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I think. I think I am. Therefore ... I *am*! (I think....)
Martin Schafer
>other democratic forms were/are used for certain decisions, while the
>established authorities held/hold the power to intervene and overturn
>decisions they didn't like, and even to change the rules from time to
>time. Their legitimacy was/is derived from their involvement in the
>earliest stages of development. "Colonists" and "users" were/are
>often spoken of in terms of contempt. And the rest is history.
>
This is probably tangential to what the two of you are actually
argueing, however: To my mind, the problem that seems to be developing
with the process of news group creation has to do with the fundamental
flaw with voting, ie the tyranny of the majority.
Recently, there have been several perfectly good newsgroup
proposals that have been voted down becaus a large group of people
disapproved of them for reasons outside the framework of usenet news.
Perhaps this is appropriate. I believe that any proposal for a new
group with a well formed name, that demostrates significant support
ought to be successful.
The simplest change that I have seen mentioned, is the suggestion
that there is some level of yes votes, 500 comes to mind, at which
point the group is created regardless of how many no votes there
are.
I think that it is entirely reasonable that the c.d.t.t revote is
happening, but I think that David Lawrence and the major sys admins
need to be careful about the perception that they are only willing
to act against this "tyranny of the majority" when a newsgroup that
they want to participate in is involved. Given that most of their
authority is moral authority, I think that they need to be seen to
be concerned about the overarching issue, not just acting out of
self-interest.
Morgan Stair
I just want to put in my two cents on this thing...
We're very lucky to have USENET as a cooperative anarchy. It give
people alot of freedom, and things run MUCH NICER because of it.
The only way it will keep running this way is if people continue to
donate their time (special thanks to the net admin types) and if the
rest of us are willing to tolerate the people that abuse the system.
They're always going to be there. Some people want their way badly
enough to abuse the system by voting from multiple sources, cross
posting things to inapropriate groups, etc.
The more we build into the "system" to stop these people, the less
freedom everyone has. Eventually, this thing will probably get too
big to handle without losing some freedom, and giving individuals and
groups real power... but then we're moving toward the inevitable
beurocracy.
Maybe we can fight off the changes with a little more work on the
software side...
A more intelligent voting program that tries to confirm the voter
identity will help tremendously without putting too many hard and fast
laws into place. Perhaps making voters "register" is a good idea. If
a voter is not registered, he's entered into a database with his full
name, birthdate, and email address. Existance must be verified by a
registered voter... or something (suggestions?). The "database" will
keep track of who's registering who, and that way it can catch fraud
alot easier.
At a minimum, making people ACK their vote "recieved" message will
slow down (ie. make alot more work for) people that are trying to
stuff the ballot, without making alot more work for the vote
server...
I'm not trying to say this is the way to go, I'm simply saying that I
think a software solution (if possible) would be better than a
"policy" solution, end everything possible should be done to let
everyone get one vote. I would like to keep USENET as free and open
as possible, and I firmly believe that this will end (eventually) if
individuals and groups are given any real control.
-Morgan (alignment: True Chaotic)
--
____________________________________________________________________
/ W. Morgan Stair <mor...@DL5000.bc.edu> Voice: (617)552-8783 \
| Software Engineer Fax: (617)552-8778 |
\ Boston College/I.S.R. 4 Alfred Circle Bedford MA 01730 /
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Ken Arromdee
>Recently, there have been several perfectly good newsgroup
>proposals that have been voted down becaus a large group of people
>disapproved of them for reasons outside the framework of usenet news.
>Perhaps this is appropriate. I believe that any proposal for a new
>group with a well formed name, that demostrates significant support
>ought to be successful.
In the cases you're probably referring to, the "reasons outside the framework
of usenet" directly lead those voters _to_ deduce that the name _wasn't_
well-formed. You can't separate the issue of proper group naming from
these other issues, since often the reasoning which concludes that a name is
or is not proper depends on those issues.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"There are no good or evil plants. There are only... plants." --Ficus (Quark)
Martin Schafer
>In article <1993Nov12.2...@ns.network.com> sch...@ns.network.com (Martin Schafer) writes:
>>Recently, there have been several perfectly good newsgroup
>>proposals that have been voted down becaus a large group of people
>>disapproved of them for reasons outside the framework of usenet news.
>>Perhaps this is appropriate. I believe that any proposal for a new
>>group with a well formed name, that demostrates significant support
>>ought to be successful.
>
>In the cases you're probably referring to, the "reasons outside the framework
>of usenet" directly lead those voters _to_ deduce that the name _wasn't_
>well-formed. You can't separate the issue of proper group naming from
>these other issues, since often the reasoning which concludes that a name is
>or is not proper depends on those issues.
>--
Well I think it is possible, though reasonable people can disagree
about whether it is appropriate. I think that a well-formed has
the following characteristics: It's parts begin with alphabetic
characters, it has no special characters that break anybody's news
software, it has no parts that are more than 14 characters long,
any other technical limitations I'm unaware of. Second (we begin
our steps into the grey areas) there is some reasonable correspondence
between the name and the type of discussion that is expected/desired
(there is some degree of self-enforcement here, since if the name
leads people to expect a particular kind of discussion, that kind
of discussion will probably occur there). New readers of usenet
should have some fighting chance of finding the group that discusses
x, if there is such a group. Finally, (this is the fuzziest and
most open to abuse) the name should pay attention to the goal of
the name space tree being a useful heirarchy. This means not
too many x.y names and avoiding five or six deep names unless
there are multiple third and fourth level entities, and fourth
level entity really needs to be broken down. This also means
that people should be able to look at the x.y.* names to scan
for things they might be interested in. Or people can choose to
carry or not carry the x.y.* groups, and have it mean something.
People objected to soc.culture.tibet /moderated, becaus they felt
it implied tibet was not part of china, or becaus they would not
be able to present their arguments that tibet was part of china,
or becaus they were annoyed at some of the postings by the
supporters of the group. These arguments have nothing to do
with the guidlines I've suggested. Similarly,
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya was reasonable, people looking
for such a discussion of the ahmadi religion would be able to
find it in the name space. The fact that there are other
places where it could also go soc.religion.ahmaddiyya for
example, does not mean that the proponents preference should
be rejected. Soc.culture.macedonia (before my time, apologies
if the name is in error) is another newsgroup shot down by
real world political concerns, nobody was confused about
what this newsgroup was about, and it seems to be in a
reasonable part of the name space.
It comes back to what is the purpose of usenet, and the big
seven, and newsgroup creation? I think that if a large
enough group of people want to establish a forum for a
particular kind of discussion, they should be allowed to
do so, even if a larger group of people would rather that
discussion not go on.
Martin
Richard M. Hartman
[ ... some ideas deleted ... ]
>I'm not trying to say this is the way to go, I'm simply saying that I
>think a software solution (if possible) would be better than a
>"policy" solution, end everything possible should be done to let
>everyone get one vote. I would like to keep USENET as free and open
>as possible, and I firmly believe that this will end (eventually) if
>individuals and groups are given any real control.
>
>-Morgan (alignment: True Chaotic)
Any software solution would be an implementation of >some< policy.
That is to say, a software solution can not be "better than" a
policy solution -- it is a way of carrying out a policy (and
may-or-may-not be better than some non-software-based methods of
implementing whatever policy is in effect). But discussing
a software solution as if it were some sort of alternative
to policy is misleading.
-rmh (alignment: neutral/neutral)
peter da silva
a name". The details of a name are rarely critical, and making the name
recognisable (macedonia as opposed to makedonija or fyrom) is far more
important than having it satisfy nationalist or religious interests.
I'd like to see this paragraph posted with the guidelines, as Martin Schafer
has here done an excellent job of distilling the essence of the issue:
In article <1993Nov14....@ns.network.com> sch...@ns.network.com (Martin Schafer) writes:
> Well I think it is possible, though reasonable people can disagree
> about whether it is appropriate. I think that a well-formed has
> the following characteristics: It's parts begin with alphabetic
> characters, it has no special characters that break anybody's news
> software, it has no parts that are more than 14 characters long,
> any other technical limitations I'm unaware of. Second (we begin
> our steps into the grey areas) there is some reasonable correspondence
> between the name and the type of discussion that is expected/desired
> (there is some degree of self-enforcement here, since if the name
> leads people to expect a particular kind of discussion, that kind
> of discussion will probably occur there). New readers of usenet
> should have some fighting chance of finding the group that discusses
> x, if there is such a group. Finally, (this is the fuzziest and
> most open to abuse) the name should pay attention to the goal of
> the name space tree being a useful heirarchy. This means not
> too many x.y names and avoiding five or six deep names unless
> there are multiple third and fourth level entities, and fourth
> level entity really needs to be broken down. This also means
> that people should be able to look at the x.y.* names to scan
> for things they might be interested in. Or people can choose to
> carry or not carry the x.y.* groups, and have it mean something.
Arnold Chu
: In article <2c3s48$i...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: >In article <1993Nov12.2...@ns.network.com> sch...@ns.network.com (Martin Schafer) writes:
: >>Recently, there have been several perfectly good newsgroup
: >>proposals that have been voted down becaus a large group of people
: >>disapproved of them for reasons outside the framework of usenet news.
: >>Perhaps this is appropriate. I believe that any proposal for a new
: >>group with a well formed name, that demostrates significant support
: >>ought to be successful.
: >
: >In the cases you're probably referring to, the "reasons outside the framework
: >of usenet" directly lead those voters _to_ deduce that the name _wasn't_
: >well-formed. You can't separate the issue of proper group naming from
: >these other issues, since often the reasoning which concludes that a name is
: >or is not proper depends on those issues.
: >--
...
: It comes back to what is the purpose of usenet, and the big
: seven, and newsgroup creation? I think that if a large
: enough group of people want to establish a forum for a
: particular kind of discussion, they should be allowed to
: do so, even if a larger group of people would rather that
: discussion not go on.
Suppose a group of hackers wants to form a forum to exchange stolen credit
card #s and private telco data. Would you support the formation of such a
group?
Suppose a group of people want a group solely to exchange kiddie porn pictures,
would you support its formation and incorporation into Usenet?
Suppose Ross and Abbott Labemployees wants to form a moderated group:
"sci.infant.nutrition" where they will only discuss the wonders of infant
formula and reject other medical opinions. Would you support it?
The point is that Usenet IS situated in a social context governed by
external laws. Names DO have profound connotations: one woman's terrorist is
another's freedom fighter. Total disregard of these issues could damage
Usenet's creditbility significantly. As a stake-holder in Usenet, I want the
option to have an influence on what groups are approved.
Regards,
A. Chu
peter da silva
> card #s and private telco data. Would you support the formation of such a
> group?
Sure. Be a great way for law enforcement people to monitor that sorta
stuff. Anyone would have to be crazy to use it, though. Be like selling
drugs openly in front of the police station.
> Suppose a group of people want a group solely to exchange kiddie porn pictures,
> would you support its formation and incorporation into Usenet?
Same same.
> Suppose Ross and Abbott Labemployees wants to form a moderated group:
> "sci.infant.nutrition" where they will only discuss the wonders of infant
> formula and reject other medical opinions. Would you support it?
Moderated groups are a separate issue. I *certainly* agree that a solid
election designed for handling confrontation is needed there.
Hows about this ballot?
Subject: a group for discussion of infant nutrition.
Part 1: Are you likely to read this group (readership survey)?
Part 2: What do you believe is the appropriate name for this group?
sci.infant.nutrition
talk.politics.baby-formula
...
Part 3: The following candidates for moderator are on the ballot.
Vote for no more than one:
a. Jack Brown-noser, Abbott Labs
(resume goes here, in each case)
b. Jane Toady, Ross Pharmecuticals
c. Fred Birkenstocks, Whole Earth Review
d. Jack Quack, National Alternative Medicine Council
e. Hanna Chromedome, MIT
For unmoderated groups, only the first two parts would be included.
David DeLaney
>card #s and private telco data. Would you support the formation of such a
>group?
>
>Suppose a group of people want a group solely to exchange kiddie porn pictures,
>would you support its formation and incorporation into Usenet?
>
>Suppose Ross and Abbott Labemployees wants to form a moderated group:
>"sci.infant.nutrition" where they will only discuss the wonders of infant
>formula and reject other medical opinions. Would you support it?
>
above (write up a RFD, get it discussed, CFV, votes, you know...). I would not
be interested in *using* any of the above three, so would not be voting one way
or the other, and I strongly suspect that the first two would either end up
not created or not *propagated* (_very_ few sysadmins want something purely
illegal on their disks - look at the trouble a.b.p.erotica gets just from
being *described* as "copyright violations"), while the third might die very
quickly from lack of interesting posts... but I do *not* think anybody should
be stopped from trying to form a group before the start of the process, simply
because of proposed content of the group. (after all, what else is alt.* for?
:-) ) So I guess my answer is: I would support the _attempt_, but not
necessarily the _newsgroup_.
>The point is that Usenet IS situated in a social context governed by
>external laws. Names DO have profound connotations: one woman's terrorist is
>another's freedom fighter. Total disregard of these issues could damage
>Usenet's creditbility significantly. As a stake-holder in Usenet, I want the
>option to have an influence on what groups are approved.
>
true - this is why nearly every proposal has some namespace arguments; that's
part of what the RFD is for. I don't think they're ever "totally disregarded".
And you have influence on what groups are approved; that's what the vote-polls
are for. You just don't have a) any more influence than anyone else or b) more
influence than the sysadmins who are listening to the outcome of the vote-poll.
Dave
and his $.02
--
David DeLaney: dbd@(utkux.utcc | panacea.phys | enigma.phys).utk.edu - collect
them all! Disclaimers: AFAIK, *nobody* speaks for U.T.Knoxville (consistently);
Thinking about this disclaimer (or about high energy theoretical particle __
physics) may cause headaches. sorry, no borders or boundaries \/
Dave Ratcliffe
- In article <34...@ursa.bear.com> c...@pit.bear.com (Arnold Chu) writes:
- > Suppose Ross and Abbott Labemployees wants to form a moderated group:
- > "sci.infant.nutrition" where they will only discuss the wonders of infant
- > formula and reject other medical opinions. Would you support it?
-
- Moderated groups are a separate issue. I *certainly* agree that a solid
- election designed for handling confrontation is needed there.
-
- Hows about this ballot?
-
[ deletia for the sake of brevity ]
You know, I actually LIKE this idea. It makes the voting process
slightly more complicated but certainly fills a need. I'd like to see
more discussion on this idea to fine-tune it a bit.
--
vogon1!frackit!da...@cse.psu.edu | Dave Ratcliffe |
- or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave | <*> |
- or - dave.ra...@p777.f211.n270.z1.fidonet.org | Harrisburg, Pa. |
Arnold Chu
: In article <34...@ursa.bear.com> c...@pit.bear.com (Arnold Chu) writes:
: > Suppose a group of hackers wants to form a forum to exchange stolen credit
: > card #s and private telco data. Would you support the formation of such a
: > group?
: Sure. Be a great way for law enforcement people to monitor that sorta
: stuff. Anyone would have to be crazy to use it, though. Be like selling
: drugs openly in front of the police station.
Not so easy. With publically avail info., many people on the net are capable
of hacking up some encryption algorithms which will be quite expensive to
crack unless you're the NAS.
: > Suppose a group of people want a group solely to exchange kiddie porn pictures,
: > would you support its formation and incorporation into Usenet?
: Same same.
Same same.
The point I'm trying to raise is what if the formation or operation of the
group might well be illegal by the laws of a country?
: > Suppose Ross and Abbott Labemployees wants to form a moderated group:
: > "sci.infant.nutrition" where they will only discuss the wonders of infant
: > formula and reject other medical opinions. Would you support it?
: Moderated groups are a separate issue. I *certainly* agree that a solid
: election designed for handling confrontation is needed there.
: Hows about this ballot?
: Subject: a group for discussion of infant nutrition.
: Part 1: Are you likely to read this group (readership survey)?
: Part 2: What do you believe is the appropriate name for this group?
: sci.infant.nutrition
: talk.politics.baby-formula
: ...
: Part 3: The following candidates for moderator are on the ballot.
: Vote for no more than one:
: a. Jack Brown-noser, Abbott Labs
: (resume goes here, in each case)
: b. Jane Toady, Ross Pharmecuticals
: c. Fred Birkenstocks, Whole Earth Review
: d. Jack Quack, National Alternative Medicine Council
: e. Hanna Chromedome, MIT
: For unmoderated groups, only the first two parts would be included.
That wouldn't be too bad at first glance.
How would a proposed name get included in the CFV?
Would any one be able to run for being a moderator ?
Regards,
A. Chu
peter da silva
> Not so easy. With publically avail info., many people on the net are capable
> of hacking up some encryption algorithms which will be quite expensive to
> crack unless you're the NAS.
Ah, but then you get a namespace problem. That should obviously be a
binaries group. Smiley/2.
More to the point, posting encrypted material in a suggestively named group
is gonna get unwelcome attention no matter whether it's crackable or not.
Attention the folks involved definitely don't want.
> The point I'm trying to raise is what if the formation or operation of the
> group might well be illegal by the laws of a country?
Then that country is responsible for blocking it, as England does for a good
number of the alt.sex groups.
> That wouldn't be too bad at first glance.
> How would a proposed name get included in the CFV?
Send in your name for consideration. There are few grounds for rejection that
I can think of, unless they get so many names it becomes necessary to do some
filtering. Get a neutral third party to do that.