Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gatech.CSNET
Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: net.internat -- A solution proposal
Message-ID: <1704@gatech.CSNET>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 19:47:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.1704
Posted: Thu Oct 24 19:47:33 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:46:36 EDT
Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech
Lines: 108
Keywords: flames, standards, targets

Below, I offer a proposal about how to calm the net.internat controversy.

First, let me note that I am not the only person holding the opinions
about the net.internat situation that I do.  It just so happens that I
am one of the more visible and active presences on the net trying to
help instill some order in the chaos, and so I guess that makes me a
very visible and easy target.  It used to be there were 5 or 10 people
whose names you could associate with trying to keep the Usenet going.
It's now down to 3 or 4. I wonder why?

Mail to me has been roughly 50-50 on my position of rmrgouping
net.internat.  The postings are about 4-1 against, but that figures --
it is so easy for someone to post without thinking.  And of course,
that's where the flames are.  Why do so many people find it so
easy to criticize others without offering any *positive* solutions or
compromises?

To reiterate -- everybody thinks that their favorite newsgroup is
special, that it deserves special attention, that we ought to give it a
break and do something different to support it.  *Every damn group*!!
For me, in good conscience, to add net.internat to the list of groups
and support it at my sites (I help administer news on 9 machines and 2
campuses) without having gone through the same procedure as every other
"net" group, would mean that I could never again feel right about
complaining about the creation of any other "net" group.  Neither could
many other responsible sys admins. And the net as a whole just *cannot*
continue to support the haphazard creation of new groups, at least
until we establish criteria for deleting old groups (try THAT sometime
and see what kind of hate mail you get -- I know).


Okay, my suggestion: I'm opposed to net.internat because of no
demonstrated previous volume, the manner in which it was created, and
the fact that the name is really a very poor choice to convey what is
going on.  The lack of volume creates problems with identifying and
establishing a readership that won't cross-post everything to other
groups, and keep the group going after the first rush of initial
postings.   The manner in which the group came about leads to problems
of precedent and other new groups.  And the name problem (which could
have been solved if only people had bothered to discuss it in
net.news.group before creating it) is also a problem.

    (As an aside, we had a "net.std" for a long time for the discussion
    of standards.  It never got used.  When I deleted it about 3 months
    ago, only 2 people ever complained.  Where were all of you then?)

What I propose is that we create "mod.std.international" or some
similar subgroup of mod.std.  Let's discuss the name here in this group
to get it right.  It will require that we find someone to moderate the
group -- preferably more than one, including at least one in Europe.
If so many people are so sure that the group is such a great idea, then
I'm sure they will be more than overjoyed to participate in the support
of the network and their newsgroup.  Moderation is easy and there is a
great deal of software to make the chore painless.  Let's see how it
addresses the problems I brought up with net.internat:

   -- The name.  Well, here we're going to pick a new name.  Hopefully
   there will be some discussion and consensus this time instead of
   someone just going ahead and creating it.

   -- The precedent.  Moderated groups have always been created because
   we had sufficient interest and a worthy topic, not because of
   volume.  I think that describes this situation. Creating a
   mod.std.international in no way gives any justification for creation
   of any other "net" group without following procedure.

   -- The lack of volume.  "mod" groups can be deleted easily if
   there is no volume; the same cannot be said of "net" groups.
   With a good coordinator it becomes a little easier to keep readers
   and inspire new discussions. (I've gotten mail, and Rick Adams
   has made a posting, which note that some people had *already*
   unsubscribed to net.internat because most of the postings were
   just repeated whining about  the problems with ASCII).

There are some additional benefits:

   -- Mod groups don't have the potential for abuse and overwhelming
   volume that "net" groups do.  This is great in a newsgroup that will
   be active *worldwide*.  If a moderator can be found on each side of
   the Atlantic, minimum, then the mail traffic for postings will be
   kept at a reasonable level.

   -- Mod groups are probably going to be directly suitable for
   the Stargate uplink.  No such bets on any "net" group.

   -- Mod groups might present a better opportunity to get an ARPA side
   of the group started and involved.  If nothing else, the
   administration of such a task would be made easier.

   -- Mod groups present a better opportunity for "official" contacts
   (e.g., mod.std.unix and John Quarterman) should any formal standards
   organization wish to take part in the discussions.


Before some semi-pro flamers start in, let me point out that moderated
groups *work* as long as there is no "net" counterpart.  Even then,
some of them (like mod.sources) work quite well.  With the switchover
of "fa" groups to "mod" groups, the "mod" groups are a presence here
to stay.  

That's it.  Now, are there any volunteers for moderators and
suggestions for a name?  Or would you all rather bitch and flame about
it some more instead?
-- 
Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet:	Spaf @ GATech		ARPA:	Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp:	...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf