Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!acsu.buffalo.edu!pjg
From: pjg@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Results of sci.aquaria vote
Message-ID: <13523@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 19 Nov 89 01:14:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: eerie.13523
References: <21910@gryphon.COM> <3329@watale.waterloo.edu> <10449@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <2903@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <5805@unix.SRI.COM> <25641F75.28203@ateng.com> <5831@unix.SRI.COM>
Sender: nobody@acsu.buffalo.edu
Reply-To: pjg@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham)
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 33
In-reply-to: maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak)

In article <5831@unix.SRI.COM>, Valerie Maslak writes:
maslak>In article <25641F75.28203@ateng.com> Chip Salzenberg writes:
chip>According to maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak):
maslak>Um, I'm willing to bet that many SAs do not have a line in their
maslak>job descriptions that specifically delegates to them the authority
maslak>to decide which USENET groups to carry.
chip>Valerie would no doubt win such a bet.  However, her point is irrelevant.
chip>Job descriptions are often vague and general.
maslak> Does it indeed, if what we're talking about is really one person
maslak>inflicting his or her personal prejudices on an entire workspace?
maslak>If I decide that X computers are better than Y computers so I won't
maslak>carry any X groups, or . . .
maslak>No, at some point, what you're talking about is really a form of
maslak>censorship based on personal prejudice, if the SA is not basing his
maslak>or her decisions on clear employer-prescribed policy.  

yow! i can't believe how people continue to confuse usenet (i'm not
real life but i play one on tv) with reality.  get a life people, it
doesn't matter all that much.  like some real life company it going to
bother placing newsgroup management guidelines in a job description.
and drag out your five (or even 50) counter-examples.  my job
description goes on at length but it can be summarized as ``get the
cycles to the users, make the machines useful and be a competent
professional while achieving the first two."  i would expect that most
companies that would reserve the right to usenet content to some
higher authority would dismiss usenet as the colossal waste of time
that it often is.

down with personal prejudice (errr, or was that simply a matter of
opinion) and three cheers for *clear* employer-prescribed policy.

perhaps SRI should make their policy available as a model to us all.
but not before they have that unix.uucp header fixed.