Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The lay of the land (was Re: sci.aquaria)
Keywords: non-fish
Message-ID: <36482@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 14 Nov 89 22:29:34 GMT
References: <712@calmasd.Prime.COM> <3013@com50.C2S.MN.ORG>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 69

>What this points out is that the Usenet is really akin to a feudal
>landscape dotted with cities and keeps run by the systems
>administrators.  No democracy. No anarchy.

>Put into this light, I don't understand why the "democracy deception"
>should continue to be perpetrated.  It just does a disservice to those
>poor souls who believe democracy exists.

That's not true. 95% of the time, the current situation works pretty well.
It may need tweaking to clean up the rough edges, but most of the time, the
voting/consenus setup gets us an answer that everyone accepts. People vote,
the admins rubberstamp it. That's a *lot* easier than trying to the net
based on anarchy.

Where it doesn't is in the special cases, when something extraordinary
happens and the system we've created breaks down. When someone, for
instance, manipulates the system or otherwise does something that many
people find unpalatable.

You won't find a lot of argument over rec.radio.shortwave, if any. The
system worked here. In almost all group creations in the last few months,
even when there was a controversy the results of the voting were accepted
and everyone went on to the next flamefest. 

Sci.aquaria, on the other hand, has made many people feel that the system
was manipulated and that the intent of the system was broken. So they're
doing what they feel they need to to fix the system.

I'd argue the following:

o A single case where the system breaks down is no reason to throw out
  the system. It works, most of the time. If we can make it work more
  reliably, with less bureaucracy and overhead, great. Let's make it better.
  But throw it out because it blew up once? That's over-reacting.

o A situation where the news administrators overule a vote is *not* a case
  of the system not working. It is *part* of the system, a part that
  the voting system makes unnecessary under most circumstances. This
  kind of action is a feedback mechanism, helping to remind people that
  they can't just run roughshod over the network -- that there are
  limits to what the net will tolerate. So that's not an instance of
  the system breaking down, but simply a rarely used feedback mechanism
  coming into play. I think it's really showing that the system *does*
  work, and works quite well -- because these things happen very rarely.

None of the arguing, posturing, blustering, moaning, whimpering and bleating
going on in news.* proves nothing, really (mine included). Whether
sci.aquaria was a good group or a bad group will be decided by its
distribution. If the net refuses to distribute it then all the pro-sci
posturing is meaningless. And, vote notwithstanding, if the pro-sci folks
succeeded in pissing off enough admins to kill the distribution, it'll send
a strong signal to others who might consider the same ploys later. (on the
other hand, the obverse is true -- if the distribution is close to normal
for sci.aquaria, then the anti-sci folks know where they stand). This basic
question will take a couple of months to settle out.

Either way, frankly, I think it's time we moved on to other things. The vote
is over, so lets quit trying to fight the fight over and over again. There
isn't much that can be done to change the way the dice have rolled, and the
rest is just noise. it isn't the impending death of the net, and it probably
isn't that important one way or another, anyway. And the flames are getting
boringly repetitive.

-- 

Chuq Von Rospach   <+>    Editor,OtherRealms    <+>   Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com   <+>   CI$: 73317,635   <+>   [This is myself speaking]

All it takes if one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.