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!ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: New newsgroup proceedures, voting.. (long) Message-ID: <1989@hao.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 16:28:49 EST Article-I.D.: hao.1989 Posted: Mon Mar 10 16:28:49 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 06:08:05 EST References: <5075@alice.uUCp> <3326@sun.uucp> <1195@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <1986@hao.UUCP> <1232@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 203 > I think that qualifies me to speak on this > subject (which I have spoken before, in fact in argument with this > same person, who hasn't changed from his last stance, by the way) I will grant you are more experienced than I thought, but did you face the kind of tight budgets I have to work with? And as far as my position not changing, so what? Neither has yours. > I agree -- it is an accounting nightmare. Then how do we implement it? We can't even get sites to upgrade as it is, even if someone DOES find a way to implement it. > Before you go on, note that my scheme *in no way* dictates how a host > handles its news locally. You are free to store whatever articles you > want, and pass any others you want. True. And that power, like it or not, also enables me to decide what groups the rest of non-AT&T Colorado will receive on their machines, at least until someone else expresses the willingness to pay the phone charges for the ones for which we won't. So far, no takers. It isn't that I *want* to have this power; I certainly don't want to be accused of censorship. My decisions have been and will continue to be based solely on fiscal factors (as well as what the boss tells me to do). If the entire backbone gets together on such a decision, then it will affect the entire net, whatever votes are taken. True, you could set up an alternate backbone, but that would just move the power into the hands of a *different* "select group". > The point of all this is to > decide in a democratic manner what groups on a netwide scale will be > kept, added, and so forth. There is nothing wrong with taking polls. I suspect that most of the time I will be willing to go along with what the net wants too, unless it contradicts the boss or the budget. > This way, groups like net.internat will > get removed by consensus, rather than by force. Net.internat was not created by consensus, either, so therefore it is a poor example to bring into this. > (Same for net.flame. > I believe under my propsed scheme net.flame would have been removed a > long time before it actually was.) This is debatable. How long would it have taken to get through the "accounting nightmare"? But this is indeed a better example and I will come back to it. > Two points: (1) You are assuming that a site downstream from you > won't pick up on a group you've dropped, which is unfair to that site. So far, the empirical evidence bears out that assumption. They are, of course, free to pick up the dropped group. In fact, many of them still carry the dropped groups. They are still called net.whatever despite the fact that no articles from out of Colorado get posted there, and nothing posted there gets out of Colorado. I think they should be renamed to co.whatever on those sites until such time as there is someone willing to pay the cost of making it net.whatever again. So far, no takers. > (Example: ihnp4 was still carrying net.flame for a while after the > backbone stopped carrying it. Other sites could have picked it up > from there Only if ihnp4 allows them to do so. > (2) You seem to think the whole net will vote against the backbone all > the time. WHAT?? Where did you get that idea? I do claim that it CAN happen that way, and when it does the backbone will win regardless of how many votes are cast against it. In that case, what's the point of wasting the time to take a vote? Back to our favorite example again, net.flame. Since the backbone decided to drop it, why bother taking a vote, since it is dropped anyway regardless of how the vote turns out? Again, you could set up an alternate backbone, but if you do you just transfer the same power to the new backbone instead of the old. > Do I sound like I am telling someone how to spend their money? Potentially, yes, when the net vote goes against our management and fiscal policies. > No one's asked you to put those groups back on your machine True, not *this* time. My point is, what if they did? I still wouldn't. > Well, judging from my map data, I don't get news from you (relief, > because I'm sure I have riled you up enough to cut my feed off :-). I'm glad you appended the smiley face there, because I want to make it absolutely clear that I would *never* cut off a feed solely because of personal dislike for someone there, and besides, I'm not that easily "riled". Disagreement does not HAVE to be heated. > Does the fact that they > are on a backbone paying for everything give them the right to spew > their excrement all over the network? No, it sure doesn't, but a netwide vote isn't going to get rid of this person unless the rest of the backbone cooperates, so again, why bother taking a netwide vote? Just petition the backbone to cut them off. Not only is it faster, and less of a load on the net, it's the only thing that would actually work. > I suppose it is better to let those who have the money get away with > all kinds of sh*t, because they are paying for it. Sounds like a real > good way to run a network. Face it, it's the ONLY realistic way to run a network where a small proportion of the sites pay the vast majority of the cost. > Somehow, I don't believe I have gotten my point across. Even if I > have, to some of you, anyone on the backbone who insists that *they* > know what is best for the rest of the network, will continue to do > things in a high-handed manner. I don't say what's best for the network, I say what's best for MY machine, and those who "freeload" off us are stuck with it. Expand this to the entire backbone, and you come up with my main point: since we pay the cost, you're stuck with us and our decisions, like it or not. Considering how much power we actually have, I think it a very positive thing that there hasn't been MORE "censorship" and "high-handed" decisions. > At any rate, let me just say this: I > do not think it is unreasonable to incorporate voting as a standard > procedure for making netwide decisions, like if a group is to be > created or removed. ...and I think it is unworkable. > I do think it is unreasonable for a few individuals > to make that decision for the rest of the net True. And it's also unreasonable for a few sites to pay for the rest of the net, but that's the way it is, and as long as it *is* that way, it ain't a democracy. > However, it is not the same when Gene > Spafford rmgrouped net.bizarre and net.internat. He clearly took > matters into his own hands. (For the record, I don't disagree with > why net.bizarre was rmgrouped, I just disagree with the manner in > which it was rmgrouped.) It was rmgrouped the same way it was created. Since it should never have been created in the first place, I had no objection to it's removal. I don't think Spaf "took matters into his own hands" any more than the persons who illegally created these groups in the first place. How come I don't hear you griping about *that*? Simple. Because Spaf is a backbone administrator, he is an easy target. I'll bet you don't even *know* who created those groups out of procedure in the first place. I'm sure *I've* forgotten, because they never had to take the public flak for it that Spaf did for their removal. > My voting scheme is set up mainly to > prevent those sorts of actions. It creates the alternative of having net.foo everywhere but the backbone, if the backbone doesn't want to carry it. All these local pockets of a so-called "net" group. If you advocate the rest of the net going against decisions made by the backbone, even in a single case, then this is what you are advocating. Think about it. > It does not presume to dictate the > actions a site, or group of sites, take locally (like when net.flame > wasn't carried anymore, although I think it was a pretty sneaky way for > the backbone to get their way, sort of like someone picking up their > marbles and going home leaving the other kids with nothing to play with The other kids can bloody well go out and buy their own marbles. No one is stopping them. > In general, all I'm trying to do > is protect those sites who actually care about doing things in a fair > manner from some twit who, for laughs, sets themself up as a USENET > funder, and proceeds to create and delete groups at whim, because they > hold the purse strings. (Extreme example, but I think anyone who > understands what I am really trying to say will get my point.) You are right, this IS an extreme example and that is exactly the point. I hope you aren't referring to any actual persons here. If someone on the backbone started behaving like this I'm sure the rest of the backbone would pull the plug on him in short order. > Sorry for the length, I was pretty steamed when I saw Greg Woods' > response to me Getting steamed because someone disagrees is not going to get us anywhere. Particularly about something like this, we need to all keep our heads and not get into a flame battle. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"