Xref: utzoo news.admin:14768 news.groups:32508 comp.groupware:579
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!dkuug!ruc.dk!david
From: david@gorm.ruc.dk (David Stodolsky)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.groupware
Subject: Reform Trial.* (was: Trial flawed)
Summary: Trial is a flop because it tries to do the wrong thing.
Keywords: group creation votes preference
Message-ID: <1991May30.144345.15890@gorm.ruc.dk>
Date: 30 May 91 14:43:45 GMT
Organization: Roskilde University, Denmark
Lines: 79




>In article <1990Nov6.203753.26978@daimi.aau.dk> dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David 
S. Stodolsky) writes:
>>A simpler explanation is that a trial simply does not measure the same thing 
as
>>a vote. A vote takes an absolute measure of interest in a topic. Trial 
measures
>>a relative interest, either in comparison with other groups or in number of
>>readers per machine. Thus the trial proposal is basically flawed (if it 
attempts
>>another approach to current criteria for group creation). And flawed in a 
way
>>which inhibits growth of the net.
>
>Interesting supposition.  I view this as a feature, however, and not a bug.
>It would have been easy to define an absolute standard of readership, or
>more appropriate, readers per machine.  I felt that a relative standard
>was more appropriate, as it would change as the net changed.
>
>I think the absolute standard of yes - no > 100 (with the recent addition
>of && yes > 2 * no) is more flawed as it has failed to adjust to
>a much larger net.
>
>--
>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-
7473

If we follow this logic, then when the Net is 10 times as large we should 
require 1000 yes votes to form a newsgroup. Since the current 100 votes 
requirement is based upon a mailing list vs. newsgroup trade-off, it is easy 
to see that trial.* is flawed - if it attempts to maintain reasonable work 
loads for mailing list managers (not to mention drowning the net in bounced 
mail). 

Do we want to have a rule that says "it is permitted for 100 people to 
organize a newsgroup" today, but tomorrow when the Net is bigger and has more 
resources the same people can not do the same thing? Seems to me, things 
should go the other way. Usenet should be the place where any group that is 
excluded by other media should be able to come and find a way to communicate 
effectively. Trial.* could play a role here, where anybody could kick off a 
trial balloon (no pun intended) and see how much interest there was. This 
assumes we want Usenet to grow. An lets face it, if Usenet doesn't play this 
role, some other net will.

What causes the difference in view is the unit of analysis we start with, and 
relative vs. absolute measurement. You base your analysis on number of 
machines on the Net. I base my analysis on the number of people interested in 
a subject. Since the machine to person ratio is constantly changing, the 
relationship between the views will also change. In the limit each person will 
have their own machine. In that case, your view leads to a competition between 
different topics for propagation. My view leads to creation of any newsgroup 
that has adequate readership.

Your view is based upon conservation of machine resources. Mine is based upon 
the conservation of human resources. You have pointed out a number of times 
that it is the human resources that are costly. Drop trial.* or rewrite it so 
that it measures the right thing.

Another weakness of the trial proposal is its dependence upon an elite group 
to select names. The idea here, I guess is that it is faster than a vote. 
Currently, creating a group takes a few weeks of discussion to select a name 
or names, a few weeks for the vote, and a few weeks for the newgroup committee 
to issue the newgroup command. This is a unique feature of Usenet, it take 
three people the same amount of time to reach a decsion as three hundred. That 
being the case, there is a better chance of reaching a good decision with the 
larger group. (Sure, this is not true for the new enthusiastic trial.* judges, 
but once trial.* becomes established and bureaucratic inertia sets in, the 
same dynamic is likely to appear.) Your mission, should you choose to accept 
it: How to get the right name from the net at large. (maybe preferential 
voting :-)


-- 
David S. Stodolsky                Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41
Department of Computer Science                 Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82
Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University Center        Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark        Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01