Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news
Subject: Re: A proposal for a modified voting rule
Message-ID: <1471@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 08:11:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1471
Posted: Wed Sep 11 08:11:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 08:43:47 EDT
References: <3215@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 35
Xref: watmath net.news.group:3742 net.news:3905

In article <3215@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>I propose the following rule -- each site can generate a weighted vote
>on any subject. The weight of the vote is equal to the number of
>OUTGOING news feeds a site supports.  This means that a backbone such
>as hplabs would have a weighted vote of about 7, nsc would be 3, and a
>leaf node that feeds news to nobody gets no vote at all. The weights
>can be generated from the mod.map data, giving people a reason to get
>their data in their and keep it up to date -- if you aren't on the map,
>you don't exist. We exclude feeds between machines in the same building
>since that isn't supporting the outside world.

I think we need to go further than even this.  There should be a transitive
closure rule applied - you get credit for everybody downstream from you
if all their news goes via you, in addition to your direct neighbors.
Thus, the total number of votes the backbone sites get would be roughly
the number of hosts on the network.  Secondary hubs get smaller numbers -
essentially one vote for each site they feed.  Leaves get one vote.

The fact is that the backbone hosts are carrying virtually the entire load
on the network.  Their generousity is what has kept the net going as long
as it has.  If they get too fed up with what they are paying for, they have
every right to pull the plug.  So they should have the major voice in
deciding what new groups to create (or even if old abused groups should
be deleted.)

For anyone who feels that being a backbone site is some kind of elite
fraternity, rest assured that all you have to do to become a backbone
host is to volunteer (and to have 3 links to other backbones.)  There
is nothing to stop people from setting up an alternative backbone with
different policies.  For example, if the current backbone were to decide
to kill (say) net.bizarre, an alternative could be set up for, say,
talk.all, and as long as that group is willing to pay to transmit the
groups talk.all, everybody is happy.

	Mark