Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!ckd From: ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Give it up, folks Message-ID: <42951@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: 18 Nov 89 10:31:24 GMT References: <127839@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <36442@apple.Apple.COM> <3016@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> <395@scorn.sco.COM> <3035@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> Sender: daemon@bu-cs.BU.EDU Organization: Boston University School of Management Lines: 136 In-reply-to: craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG's message of 17 Nov 89 20:52:00 GMT news.groups's own craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) said: Craig> [the "sysadmins only" voting system] In article <395@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: David> Ok...some of these points have been brought up before, but they bear David> repeating: David> 1) What is a site? We've got people reading news on over 100 David> machines here at SCO. Does the admin for each machine get to vote? David> Or just the "admin" for the uucp hub? >>>>> On 17 Nov 89 20:52:00 GMT, craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. >>>>> Wilson) said: Craig> If it handles news and is registered, it would appear to be a site. Okay, fine. I'd better go register the workstations. David> 2) What is a sys admin or designate? Is it the person listed in the David> UUCP map entry? Is the person who's making news work on the system? David> Is it anyone with a root password? Craig> That really can worked out at the site. As long as only one person Craig> from a registered site attempts to vote. All of the other squabbling Craig> can be handled internally, where it belongs. Multiple votes from one Craig> site could cause revocation of voting privileges. I love it! I can cancel out *all* of BU's voting capability in one stroke! (Well, two. I think bu.edu has its own map entry now.) For that matter, with a little work I could cancel out all of Ohio State's voting capability! Yum! This is even better than I thought. David> 3) What about my machine at home? I get news there...I'm the only David> one who reads it, but, as you say, it's the sysadmins who should David> "determine how it runs". And frankly, I've got so little disk David> space, I don't think anymore newsgroups should be created. Ever. David> And let's start removing newsgroups too...who really needs David> comp.sys.. Craig> See Number 1 above. Time to register those workstations, again. Oh, and my Mac. And my friend's Mac. And a few of the ones down at the computer store. David> 3.5) What about a machine at home. Should a site that only gets a David> small feed have the same rights as, say, uunet? Yes? Weird. Craig> I knew that this argument would rear its head. But, yes, I am saying Craig> that each registered site gets one vote. Backbone or leaf site, Craig> doesn't matter. This is no stranger than giving a vote to every Craig> reader when surely some do far more to keep the news flowing than Craig> others. Is the system I propose any weirder than the current one? I Craig> don't think so. I do. And remember, by lowering the number of votes, you increase the power of each one, making it that much more useful to sway (or forge!) a small number of 'em. Heck, if I really want to pass sci.puns, I'll just go through the maps, find some sites that aren't likely to bother voting, and whip myself up a majority. Craig> I personally feel that every non-leaf site should be required to Craig> carry a full feed if they carry news. That would reduce the Craig> problems related to one hiearchy getting better distribution than Craig> another. It would also cause a hell of a lot of systems to drop off the net, I'd suspect. This is rather socialist equalization--and tough to enforce, unless you and the net.cops.with.guns.and.big.dogs are going to go check everyone's active files. David> 4) What about (dare I ask) forgeries? With one vote representing David> (perhaps falsely) the will of 1-1000 people, this could start to David> make a large difference. Craig> Actually, I believe that forgeries and fake votes would be more Craig> difficult given the proposed system. See Number 2 above. If multiple Craig> votes come in from one site and the real vote cannot be determined, Craig> disregard all votes from that site. The system administrator would Craig> have the responsibility of determining the source of the counterfeit Craig> votes. And it would behoove the other administrators to assist in the Craig> search. This is lovely. I don't need to forge votes going my way, I just need to forge a vote and it *cancels* the original voter's vote, lowering the total number of votes cast. So if there are 100 admins voting, and I forge 20 admin votes (and 20 more from admins who don't bother to vote), it's still 100 votes total, but I've cancelled 20 opposing voters *and added 20 in my favor*. David> 5) And what about all the non-admins who make a difference. Voting David> may just be an illusion of democracy, but I (for one) want that David> illusion maintained. And so do a number of other people. Craig> I didn't say that there wouldn't be discussion by everyone. And Craig> actually, the proposed system, known as representational democracy, Craig> would be closer to what we have in most of the "democractic" Craig> countries. Do you vote on most laws or regulations that affect you? Craig> No, you elect representatives to do that for you. Do you vote for the Craig> President of the United States? No! Your voting decides which Craig> Presidential Elector from your state gets to vote in the Electoral Craig> College and what your preference is w.r.t. that person's vote. The Craig> elector can vote for whoever when the time comes. So much for Craig> "democracy". Yup. That's why some people want to change it. USENET should, IMHO, be a forward-looking group of folks--not looking to old, outdated, vestigial parts of our governmental "system" (HA!) for leadership. Craig> [...] I am presuming that if the system administrator does not have Craig> the time or inclination to perform the task of voting, that system Craig> administrator will designate someone who is willing and able to Craig> perform it. (strangled noises) Yeah, right. David> There is no fair way to run anything that consists of differently sized David> and priced units. This system is far from the best, but it's important David> to note that the siteadmin has ultimate veto power at their site, simply David> by not carrying (and fascisticly) not passing the group. Craig> The people who have responsibility for paying the bills have the Craig> ultimate veto power. They should be the ones who determine how their Craig> resources are used. If you don't like how you are being treated at a Craig> site, buy a machine. Get registered and vote. Once you start paying Craig> for computer resources, modems, phone lines, etc., you will be more Craig> concerned about how those resources are being used. That's what he just said! They have that power *now*! Why do we need to give them both voting power *and* the veto? To use your civics-class example of the US Government, you've just given the Congress collective power to do anything by a simple majority. No checks or balances, except adding yourself to Congress. [Oh, except that *this* Congress is unelected.] -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 "Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."