Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!gds
From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: the recent rmgroups have started me thinking ...
Message-ID: <179@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 13:50:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.179
Posted: Wed Oct 23 13:50:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 07:36:36 EDT
Organization: MIT Lusers and Hosers Inc., Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 85
Xref: watmath net.news:4127 net.news.group:3943

I have seen some recent flamage on the subject of the rmgrouping of
net.bizarre and net.internat.  I am not going to include the text of the
flamage, but want to discuss in general the policy of rmgrouping,
newgrouping and what groups should be where.

USENET stands for User's Network.  In my opinion this means a network
for the users.  In other words, the network should be whatever its
users want it to be.  If the users want it to be a net for flames,
trivial pursuits, information or serious technical discussion, it should
be that net.

In the past, before the large influx of new sites and the "Information
Overload", it was possible for anyone to suggest the creation of a
group, and build it without risking high volumes of news inundating the
rest of the net.  However, times have changed and there has to be a
consensus for the creating of a group.  Similar requirements exist for
the retaining and removal of groups.

Which brings me to my main point, the net-wide creation and removal of
net.bizarre and net.internat.  In the first place, Spaf is correct in
stating that those groups should never have existed, according to the
current charter of USENET, since a consensus was not reached by the net
whether the groups should have been created.  However, Spaf's
countermove, removing the groups, shouldn't have been done either,
because there was no consensus by the net that the groups should be
removed.

Before you start up your 'f' keys ready to flame me, consider what I
said carefully in the previous paragraph.  What I am pointing out here
is that the actions of a few are jeopardizing the entire net, which
cannot continue if the net is to continue.  Whether that few is the
moderators list (which I am on), or a few respondents to a message
asking for votes for/against creation/deletion of a group, or just a
single person creating/deleting a group, it is not enough to justify
said actions.  What is needed is what was proposed before, a site voting
mechanism on whether an action should be taken net-wide.  In other
words, if someone is going to do something which affects the net as a
whole, as opposed to any local distribution, all the sites in the net
should vote on it.

This is not to say that groups cannot be created at all though.  In the
first case, the sites which wanted to carry net.bizarre and
net.internat should have agreed to cooperatively carry the group
themselves without inflicting the rest of the net.  Consequently, the
removal of said groups should have been done on a site-to-site basis, in
other words they should have no longer agreed to carry it, leaving the
rest of the sites who wish to carry the groups alone.  Remember, there
are other sites with users who read those groups, who would be very
unhappy if their site lost their group with no warning.

I am not trying to single out any individuals here (sorry, Spaf, if I
mentioned your name) but trying to characterize what has been going on
in the net as of late in general and what needs to be done in the future
if the net is to survive.  What is needed is better use of regional
distribution, moderation where necessary, and above all cooperation of
all users of the net to abide by the rules.  Like I said, it is the
User's Network, so every user has a responsibility to make the net as
good as it can be.

One last word on the future of certain groups which are candidates for
deletion -- net.flame, net.general, net.religion, perhaps some others.
I am not going to comment on the absolute value of these groups -- they
fall into a category of group which only has value to the individual
readers of the group, and not to companies or institutions at large.
Whether or not that constitutes reason to keep that group around is not
for me to decide.  I do have the option to create local distribution of
that group, or negotiate distribution of that group with other sites
which are willing to carry it.  I do not have the right to remove the
group from the net completely, unless a consensus is reached by the net
that the group should go away.  Ultimately, I can just take the group
off my site and refuse to distribute it, but that is as far as I should
go until a consensus is reached.  I hope that this policy is adopted in
the future for groups which are candidates for removal.

Again, I did not intend for anyone to be singled out.  I just want to
see the net have a little more peace and a lot less shouting.  I welcome
comments (even flames) but before you hit your 'f' key think about what
I've been saying and how it affects you personally, your site, your
region, and ultimately the net.
-- 
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu