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 mit-eddie.MIT.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!gds
From: gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: New newsgroup proceedures, voting.. (long)
Message-ID: <1256@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 01:45:58 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1256
Posted: Wed Mar 12 01:45:58 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 04:15:48 EST
References: <5075@alice.uUCp> <3326@sun.uucp> <1195@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <1989@hao.UUCP>
Organization: MIT Lusers and Hosers Inc., Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 49
Summary: I guess democracy won't work

First off, I would like to state for the record that I am not trying
to attack Spaf or anyone else for cleaning up the net.  Like I said in
my previous article, I felt that *action* of rmgrouping net.internat
was the proper thing to do, since it was not created according to the
rules.  It is the *method* I disagreed with -- he didn't consult the
rest of the net about it (not even in net.news.group), he just
rmgrouped it.  If the rules had been upheld from the beginning
net.internat wouldn't have been created, but rmgrouping it didn't help
much either (as evidenced by the many sites, including backbones who
decided to carry it, and still do).  Two wrongs don't make a right.

From the mail I've recieved so far, and judging from past experiences,
I've decided that democratic procedure won't work for USENET, at least
not until either (1) a far cheaper transport mechanism is used, or (2)
all the sites share the cost of USENET (like in Europe).  Until, then,
sadly to say, the backbone will have the final word, because they have
the power to discontinue whatever groups they wish.

I can understand the necessity of cutting back certain groups for
fiscal reasons.  I am somewhat concerned, though, that personal
preferences may get in the way of sound economic judgment (see recent
discussion on rmgrouping net.jokes as example).  What I don't want to
see is what Thomas Cox once mentioned -- "power politics", where
individuals with the power make decisions which are beneficial to
their personal tastes, as opposed to their space requirements, phone
bills, etc.  This goes for newsgroup creation also -- an established
need should be made for a group before it can become a net group, and
no individuals should be permitted to exceed that constraint and
"mandate" the creation of a group.

I'll probably leave this discussion for a while, and see what others
have to say.  I'll carry on discussions about how (in theory) a voting
scheme could be worked in private mail, and summarize the results.  I
encourage others to post their ideas -- the idea is not for anyone to
win, but for the whole net to win.

Again, I mean no offense to anyone in particular -- I'm just trying in
ways I know how to improve the net.  I think those of you who work the
software, the other moderators, those who write the documentation, are
doing a good job -- let's not become divided over some issues but work
cooperatively to improve the net.


-- 
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.

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