Xref: utzoo news.admin:7813 news.groups:15094 comp.mail.uucp:3804
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!bucket!whizz!bbh
From: bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: New newsgroup hierarchy
Keywords: long
Message-ID: <951@whizz.uucp>
Date: 25 Nov 89 21:10:30 GMT
References: <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> <1989Nov16.172110.21492@utzoo.uucp> <7030@ficc.uu.net> <1989Nov20.162705.6355@utzoo.uucp> <1989Nov22.045538.16379@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: bbh@whizz.UUCP (Bud Hovell)
Distribution: na
Organization: McCormick & Hovell, Inc.
Lines: 57

In article <1989Nov22.045538.16379@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
>I really think it is worth the trouble though.  Why must admins who do
>their jobs give way continually to those who choose to ignore actually
>administering their system?  We get other "major" alternate
>hierarchies including u3b, unix-pc, and now vmsnet.  Why can't they be
>merged into the regular USENET namespace?
>
>[Answer: because of the admins who just don't understand how it all
>works.  "Uh, why did johann@bigvax.site.edu send a newgroup for
>comp.os.vms.networks without a vote??"  No, I don't think it is a good
>answer.  It is one I expect to hear though.]

I was recently drawn, quartered, and fully basted for arguing that unix-pc*
should be integrated into the "regular USENET namespace". :-)

While I happen to favor this idea still (having never been one to abandon a
postion *simply* because it may be grossly flawed :-), I can assure you that
the folks who disagreed [and who prevailed] could *never* be characterized as
inept slackers who "don't understand how it all works".

Indeed, I must say that the distinguishing feature of *many* of the people who
strongly opposed my [not new] argument is that they arose from that population
of persons generally recognized for their broad experience and knowledge.
People who are distinguished by active contribution of their time, skill, and
(oftentimes) great patience in support of usenet generally, and unix-pc
sysadmins and users particularly.

Nor was there ever any mention of concern for other administrators who lack
such understanding.  [Few administrators who are lazy or inept are going to
take the additional time often required to arrange for a special feed to come
to them.  Concern for participation of the inept might actually better support
the argument for integration of unix-pc* (or vmsnet*) into the already
existing hierarchy, precisely because no added effort would be required by
such sysadmins to obtain that specific participation].

Comfort may be drawn from assuming that one's opponents likely suffer from
diminished capacity, insufficient experience, or lack of motivation to excel.

It is also possible to argue that opponents are just plain cussed folk who are
no damn good and never will be.  (The view I tend to favor :-).

But the fact is that people often make choices different than our own based
on what makes *them* more or less comfortable - which comfort may arise from
causes not fully susceptible to "reason" (the label most of us use to identify
that process by which we collect a body of objective evidence which supports
the position with which *we* are subjectively most comfortable).

If vmsnet succeeds stand-alone, then it does. If it fails, the participants
will know it sooner than anyone else and fold the operation forthwith.

Why not let these folks get on with the acid test? - with our good wishes for
the success of their venture.
 
                                 Bud
________________________________________________________________________
UUCP: ...{tektronix|sun}!nosun!whizz!bbh       (Just another pilgrim :-)
MOTD: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way!" - Ted Turner