Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!woods From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group,net.flame Subject: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds Message-ID: <1817@hao.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 18:05:56 EDT Article-I.D.: hao.1817 Posted: Wed Oct 23 18:05:56 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 04:16:14 EDT References: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 283 Xref: watmath net.news:4137 net.news.group:3953 net.flame:12471 > It seems that Gene Spafford has recently taken to reorganizing USENET > to suit his tastes. Wrong. He has taken to reorganizing it to suit a consensus of backbone site administrators, who pay for the damn thing. > 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. The content of the groups is not the issue. These groups were created without going through the proper procedure which has been WELL DOCUMENTED. We simply cannot continue to let every bozo who thinks his topic is of interest and gets 10 people to agree with him create a newsgroup. The removal of this group is a STATEMENT to the net as a whole: if you do not follow proper procedure, you cannot create a newsgroup. I support Spaf 100%. > 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. You are, of course, entitled to hold your own opinion. I even agree with it. But, we have to wake up and face reality: we can NO LONGER AFFORD to allow anyone to post whatever they want whenever they want. It just isn't practical any more. We have two choices: do something about it (i.e. change "the character of the net") or let the net collapse under its own weight. I know which of those choices *I* prefer. How about you? > Spaf may not have created the rules he cites, but his *centralized* > enforcement of them... ...is absolutely mandatory. If there isn't enforcement of the rules from somewhere, people won't obey them. > 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," He did not, I believe, say that. What he DID say was: the backbone sites deciding not to CARRY it represented USENET anarchy at it's finest. If you want to argue with Spaf, I suggest you argue with what he actually said. Otherwise you are just arguing with yourself. > What I object to is its unilateral deletion by a > cabal of topologically well-placed superusers. Tough. "topologically well-placed" sites are also the ones who PAY for most of it. If you want to foot our phone bill for net.bizarre, fine. If not, then don't tell us what we should and shouldn't be willing to pay for. >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. True. Again, that is because those groups never should have been created in the first place. The creators of those groups DID NOT FOLLOW ACCEPTED and WELL-ESTABLISHED procedures. > 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. It wasn't a local one. It's high time people start following the rules. The net is now simply too big for TOTAL anarchy. If you don't like the rules, that's a separate issue. Submit articles asking to change them. Perhaps lots of people agree with you. The present set of rules was indeed agreed upon years ago; it's a pity we didn't enforce them then, as it wouldn't be so difficult to do so now. > 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." Just so you know, he isn't alone. The group never should have been created in the first place. > Postings of this sort, no matter what the content, are symptomatic of > somebody trying to take control. That's like saying the police officer who arrested you is also responsible for making the laws. That isn't so. By your own admission, Spafford did not make the rules up himself. He's just enforcing them. > 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. IT DID?? That's news to me! 10 people posting "I want the group" articles is NOT the kind of consensus called for in the rules, which are WELL STATED in Spaf's recent posting. I suggest you read them. The rules specifically state that desire of a number of people is NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS to create a newsgroup. You forgot the #1 criteria: DEMONSTRATED NEED, which means traffic IN OTHER RELATED GROUPS. There was no such demonstrated need *ever* for net.bizzare. > 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. Since when does EUUG get to make worldwide decisions? If that's the case, let them create eur.internat. Also, consensus reached at a meeting does not fit in ANYWHERE in the criteria for newsgroup formation. At least READ the goddam rules before you start this kind of argument. > 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. Once again, the content of the group is not at issue. It's method of creation IS the issue. Let's stick to that, please. We cannot selectively enforce the rules based on which groups we think are "worthwhile", or then it really WILL be altering the net to suit our own personal tastes. > 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." And how many flames do you think Spaf would get if he came out and said "net.bizzare is garbage, so we're going to remove it, but net.internat has useful material in our opinion, so we're going to keep that one". That truly WOULD be subjective removal of groups. > Emerson aside, this argument > doesn't carry much weight, since net.bizarre *was* (eventually) created > in accord with the existing procedures. No, it wasn't. There was never any demonstrated need by postings in other groups. Re-read the rules, particularly #1. > (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. To whom? YOU? I'm beginning to think that SOME form of control is ESSENTIAL. Moderation seems to me to be the lesser of several possible evils. > 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. Who gets to decide what is "interesting"? That's why the rules were created in the first place, to provide OBJECTIVE criteria for justifying new groups. >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. I couldn't disagree more. The major problem with the net right now is simple: TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. New groups increase traffic; that is a fact. We have to SLOW DOWN the rate of growth. Newsgroup creation needs to become MORE controlled, not less. > In other words, a new newsgroup can only be created to siphon off a > flood of drivel ..or a flood of good articles on a clearly-definable topic... > 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. That is EXACTLY why you have to demonstrate a need first! That shows that you would NOT, in fact, create a home for articles that wouldn't otherwise get posted because THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING 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! net.bizarre is a PERFECT illustration of why the "demonstrated need" criterium is so important. These postings are in fact articles that would not have been posted if the group had not been created. The "demonstrated volume" of which you speak occured AFTER the group's creation; the rules state that the demonstrated need should occur BEFORE creation. Thus, if the rules had been followed the group wouldn't have gotten created and there would have been LESS traffic on the net as a result. > 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??? There is nothing wrong with creating new, interesting discussions. What Spaf's sentence says is that we can't create a new group for every one of them. If you have a topic you want to discuss, fine. Post an article on it in a related group. If there truly ISN'T a related group (which I highly doubt; I challenge you to come up with a topic that isn't at least marginally related to that of an existing newsgroup), use net.misc, that's what it is for. IF an ongoing discussion starts, THEN suggest creating a newsgroup for it. If it doesn't, then the newsgroup wasn't needed in the first place. > 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. Volume in EXISTING groups is not the point. We're talking about creation of NEW groups here. > 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. > ...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*. Nor do I. I hate it when my articles get lost because someone was too lazy to upgrade. So, I might agree that ONE of his points was shot down, but that does not change the fact that the proper procedure was NOT followed when net.internat and net.bizarre were created. Therefore, they should be removed. > 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. Two suggestions: 1) follow proper procedure when you create your groups, so that the "gods" won't be tempted to "screw you over"; and 2) don't post to or try to read groups that were not created by the proper procedure, because they cannot be expected to stay around. >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. Tough. If those trying to create the group had followed the proper procedure in creating it, it wouldn't be "flitting in and out of existence". > 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. I think you are being very unrealistic here. While we are waiting for the netwide vote, who in the hell do you think is paying the phone bills? What you are trying to do will probably force the "backbone cabal" into refusing to carry the groups on their sites, thereby effectively killing the group, but it's even worse than that; there will be "local pockets" of the group in existence, and people will continue to post articles there, unaware that most of the net won't get to see it. It is to prevent THAT situation that the "backbone cabal" sends out the "rmgroup" messages for groups that they have decided not to carry. If you still want a local group, fine; create a local group. The "backbone cabal" has zero control over any local groups you create. The FACT is that you CAN'T have a netwide group without the cooperation of the backbone sites. > (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?) I agree completely. If you don't like what the backbone is doing, arrange your own connections to other parts of the country. Then YOU will be paying the phone bills so YOU will get to decide what groups to carry and pay for. I'd be curious to see if there are, in fact, any "takers". > -- > Robert Thau --- The *Young* Curmudgeon. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY