Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!h-sc1!thau From: thau@h-sc1.UUCP (robert thau) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group,net.flame Subject: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds Message-ID: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 20:31:56 EDT Article-I.D.: h-sc1.614 Posted: Tue Oct 22 20:31:56 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 06:31:08 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center Lines: 154 Xref: linus net.news:3311 net.news.group:3262 net.flame:11512 "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --- Ralph Waldo Emerson It seems that Gene Spafford has recently taken to reorganizing USENET to suit his tastes. At first, he simply deleted a number of small, inoffensive newsgroups which had practically no traffic anyway. Nobody particularly cared. (This has been defended as follows: "even small (local) volume adds up to a large amount net-wide." But what does small global volume (1-2 messages per week) add up to?) Recently, however, Spafford has taken it upon himself to delete two thriving, busy newsgroups --- net.internat and net.bizarre. The case of net.internat is especially distressing, as this newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio has reached heights heretofore undreamt of on USENET. On top of the fact that two busy newsgroups are going away, the fundamental character of the net is being changed, I think, for the worse. Spaf may not have created the rules he cites, but his *centralized* enforcement of them, with a literal-mindedness rarely seen outside of fourth-grade classrooms and the IRS, is something entirely new. Spaf's oft-repeated hallucination that the New Order already came about three years ago, and that he is simply "continuing to maintain" it (a direct quote), by the power vested in him by nobody in particular, is simply wrong. I was here too. To deal directly with some of Spaf's more obnoxious claims: the deletion of net.bizarre does *not* represent "traditional USENET anarchy at its finest," nor even at its lowest. I admit that net.bizarre consists, at this point, entirely of trash. What I object to is its unilateral deletion by a cabal of topologically well-placed superusers. A decision not to carry the newsgroup at any individual site might be marginally "anarchic," if it were not propagated, but a gaggle of rmgroup messages hit absolutely everybody. In any case, if the decision were truly a local one, there would have been no need to inform the network as a whole, at length, in net.announce. Also, while the net.announce posting on the subject contained a number of helpful hints on setting up an alternate backbone and so forth, Spaf's real feelings on the matter seem to be summed up by the first paragraph, which says in full, without qualification, "Net.bizarre is going to go away." Postings of this sort, no matter what the content, are symptomatic of somebody trying to take control. More peculiar is Spafford's contention that established procedures were not followed in the creation of net.bizarre. The initial create messages were indeed wildcats, but subsequently there *was* a discussion on net.news.group, which *did* result in a consensus. What's the gripe? Equally peculiar is Spafford's claim that net.internat was started as a wildcat newsgroup. As postings on net.internat itself have made clear, the group was mandated at an EUUG meeting. Its cancellation is even more peculiar. On the basis of Spaf's own postings, this group seems to be the summum bonum: a technical group (easy to justify to management) with a relatively small, but nontrivial volume, in which over 50% of the postings have something new and interesting to say. Compare that to net.unix. (Or has it improved since I unsubscribed?) The excuse given several times is that it was not established in accord with existing procedures, and thus must be cancelled along with net.bizarre in order that "enforcement" be "consistent." Emerson aside, this argument doesn't carry much weight, since net.bizarre *was* (eventually) created in accord with the existing procedures. However, we only truly arrive in tripped-out looking-glass electric kool aid wonderland when we examine Spafford's ideas on how a newsgroup *should* come into being. To keep this missive from getting completely disjointed, I'll prefix my discussion of spaf's comments with a few comments of my own. USENET has a problem: garbage. I don't mean net.flame, or net.bizarre, or any of those monstrosities one can get away from by a simple 'ug'. I mean naive, silly, or simply incorrect postings everyplace they could possibly show up. (So I don't get hit, Mea Culpa. Once.) This kind of trash makes many of the technical groups simply unreadable (at least for me). (Yes, I know about the kill-list feature of 'rn'. No, I haven't tried it. No, I don't think it would help. New garbage shows up more quickly than the old garbage goes away). One possible solution is simply yoking in the idiots, e.g. with moderated groups. Ignoring the fact that moderated groups so far seem half-successful at best, moderation implies central control, the evils of which are by now apparent. What's left? The best one can do is try to provide a haven for those interesting discussions which do arise from time to time. To this end newsgroups are created among users. If the net is going to remain worthwhile as more people sign on, newsgroup creation has got to get more flexible, not more rigid. On to Spafford. Quoting directly: > Proposals have been made recently for groups like "net.personals", > "net.os" and "net.docs". Although some people think these are good > ideas in some way or another, there has yet to be any *demonstrated > volume* of postings on these topics in any newsgroup. Thus, there is > no real need for separate newsgroups on those topics. (There are other > objections to "net.personals" and "net.docs", but that should be > enough.) In other words, a new newsgroup can only be created to siphon off a flood of drivel which is inundating an existing newsgroup, to give it a nice, warm, isolated home where it can flourish in peace. This requirement seems particularly odd when stated by someone whose stated concern is the a minimization of total net volume, and who objects to new newsgroups on the basis that they might (heaven forbid!) provide a forum for articles that might not get otherwise posted. If net.bizarre proves anything at all, it is that the last thing we need is another newsgroup with a *demonstrated volume* of postings! At another point, Spafford notes that: > Creating a newsgroup just because > the topic is interesting is *NOT* something we have had as part of this > procedure [for creating new groups]. In so far as this sentence even makes sense (which it doesn't), it says that small newsgroups sustaining interesting discussions are absolutely out of the question. JUST WHAT THE HELL IS THIS NETWORK FOR, ANYWAY??? So why not make it a mailing list? As has been pointed out in this forum repeatedly, it is often the case that far more people want to read a newsgroup than to write it. It's also worth pointing out that good postings require thought, and thought takes time, so in a newsgroup containing thoughtful discussion, the volume will inevitably be relatively low. (Relative to sinkholes like net.bizarre, net.flame, and net.unix, that is). I believe the actual volumes of the various groups on the net do bear me out on this point. Another Spafford objection to creation of new newsgroups which seems partially reasonable at first blush is that locally written software is breaking because it's running out of space. Well, I've written my own software. It runs (more or less) on a PDP-11. Adjusting it for more groups, should that become necessary (it hasn't) is simply a matter of changing a number in a header file and typing 'make'. I have *no sympathy* for anyone whose software would require more work than this. *NONE*. One final note. I am one of the recipients of mail to the 'usenet' alias on tardis.ARPA. As such, I have noticed (just today) new newsgroups called (of all things) net.internat and net.misc.coke. Plainly, there are people out there (like me) who aren't usually terribly vocal in this forum, but nevertheless resent being screwed over by the gods. The result of this situation will probably be reminiscent of the early days of net.bizarre: people attempting to carry on a discussion on newsgroups which are flitting in and out of existence on a daily basis. This is annoying to all concerned, those trying to sustain the group and those trying to destroy it alike. At the very least, it would be nice to avoid this situation by declaring a moratorium on the removal of groups until there is a genuine, rational, net-wide consensus on how to proceed. That's *net-wide*, not majority vote of the backbone cabal. (p.s. If traffic on the backbone is such a problem, why not simply improve connectivity to eliminate the backbone? This is a *solution* which could be implemented by *local* decision of backbone sites to shuck some connections, and *local* decisions at other sites to add new ones. Any takers?) -- Robert Thau --- The *Young* Curmudgeon.