Xref: utzoo news.admin:6434 news.groups:11263 gnu.misc.discuss:81 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob From: bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies Message-ID: Date: 1 Aug 89 21:37:00 GMT References: <7429@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <325@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> <1168@unocss.UUCP> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science Lines: 150 In-reply-to: mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov's message of 26 Jul 89 22:00:12 GMT Distribution: I'm finally beginning to catch up on gnu.misc.discuss, and a few points ought to be made. As ever, I don't speak for FSF (like almost everyone else here), but I may have a few useful insights (like almost everyone else here seems to think they do too.:-). In article <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: [From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":] Note that use of these groups to discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). I question the appropriateness of the use of publicly-funded educational and government networks for organized private political advocacy. That's a fair question, but I think the preponderance of internet mailing list and newsgroup experience leans toward the "don't worry about it" side. There are lots of private mailing lists providing havens for people holding similar views on issues. The "off-limits" phrase probably refers to social acceptability in a forum, not anything that anyone can actually enforce. Gentle (!) persuasion is about all that's possible, just as on the Usenet. If the "off-limits" material mentioned above is actually suppressed in gnu.misc.discuss (i.e., the charter above is not mere posturing), The charter was the first article posted in the newsgroup, . The only suppression encouraged is that of flaming, tit-for-tat, etc., which would only be the civilized thing to do. I propose to make a policy inquiry as to whether the gnu groups may permissibly be carried on federal and other publicly-funded networks (such as the DDN/NSF Internet and regionals, and state educational networks) given the action and intentions of the groups' sponsor. My understanding of the policy of the NSF sponsors (like Dr. Steven Wolff) has been not to make a policy, on the grounds that if a policy must be made, hardly anyone will like all its implications. But by stating that contrary political viewpoints or taboo subjects will be "off-limits", FSF has crossed from sponsorship to private advocacy, and that is wrong. The authorship of the text in question (from "Alternative Newsgroup Heirarchies") is in question. It apparently did not come from FSF. Therefore, until its origin is clear, please don't attribute such statements to FSF. Still, origin has nothing to do with the appropriateness of private advocacy, which is an entirely different issue. In article <4439@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: From article <12348@altos86.Altos.COM>, by dtynan@altos86.Altos.COM (Dermot Tynan): ... Is it any wonder that RMS is opposed to political or non-technical discussion? Not only RMS, but most of the people working on GNU software and following the GNU mailing lists/newsgroups, are tired of the volume that political discussions generate. It's not a political opposition as much as practical issue. People's mailboxes are full. If the intent is really only to prohibit these sorts of discussions, the statement in "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" is inappropriately worded and ought to be changed. Such a change is under way. In article <325@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: But the charter as previously quoted doesn't say "No politics in the gnu groups"; it says, in effect, "No politics except OUR politics in the gnu groups", and that is not acceptable on a publicly subsidized network. That's not the charter, it's an abbreviated commentary. The aforementioned article in gnu.misc.discuss is the charter of gnu.misc.discuss. The charters of the rest of the groups can be found in emacs/etc/MAILINGLISTS. Presumably gnu.misc.discuss was formed to siphon the political and philosophical debates out of gnu.gcc, and that is fine, as long as it is done in an evenhanded, nonexclusive manner. From what I have seen so far in gnu.misc.discuss, this seems to be true. If it becomes otherwise, then I think we have a problem. There are no technical means in place for such filtering. As with any other unmoderated newsgroup in gnu.* or the Usenet or anywhere else, the only mechanisms are social persuasion. In article tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: I have reread the charter for gnu.misc.discuss a few times to see if perhaps I was missing something in it... A good thing to do! :-) ...but I still do not see where it says anywhere, implicitly or explicitly, that only the viewpoints of the FSF will be tolerated in gnu.misc.discuss. Indeed so. ...why should gnu control, for example, be discussed in a group about GNU software? You meant "gun control", right? :-) In article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: You didn't begin reading at the beginning at the thread. This has nothing to do with the charter for gnu.misc.discuss, but rather the change to the document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies" that is periodically posted along with the half-dozen other guides to Usenet. ANH is not authoritative, and should not be referred to as a charter. The gnu.* charters/MAILINGLISTS descriptions should be taken as authoritative. I am informed... By whom? ...that the addtional sentence was written by either Len Tower or Richard Stallman. Since Len asked me whether I wrote it, I suspect he didn't. So far, all of us who might be expected to have had anything to do with it haven't been able to find out where it came from. Spaf is away at a conference or on vacation (or perhaps he has "turned aside" - I Kings 18:27 :-), so he hasn't yet told us its origin, and we're all still in the dark. In article <1168@unocss.UUCP> fritz@unocss.UUCP (Tim Russell) writes: As near as I can tell, rms's wonderful message asking people to boycott Apple was posted AFTER this change in the A.N.H. documentation. This to me is definitely a Bad Thing, and was the moving force behind my angered posting. 1) RMS has held such positions for years, and has been posting such messages for almost as long. 2) RMS almost certainly doesn't read the groups in which ANH appears, so any connection between his statements and ANH would be inferred by the reader. 3) As near as I can tell, RMS didn't write any part of ANH. Again, these are my opinions only. I have no connection with FSF. I don't speak for RMS, Len Tower, or any of FSF, and I'll accept their correction if they decide to offer it. But I thought I'd offer a glimpse of things from my point of view.